“Someone That Matters” that Matters.pdf“Someone That Matters” | The Quality of Care in Childcare Institutions in Indonesia page iv FOREWORD Director General for Social Services

“Someone That Matters” | The Quality of Care in Childcare Institutions in Indonesia

page

i

“Someone that matters”The Quality of Care in Childcare Institutions in Indonesia

2007

“I want to become someone that matters...”

(Child, in an institution in Central Java)


page

ii

The International Save the Children Alliance is the world’s leading independentchildren’s rights organization, with members in 27 countries and operationalprogrammes in more than 100.

We fight for children’s rights and deliver lasting improvements to children’s livesworldwide.

Vision

Save the Children works for a world:

- That respects and values each child

- That listens to children and learns

- Where all children have hope and opportunity

Mission

Save the Children fights for children’s rights.

We deliver immediate and lasting improvements to children’s lives worldwide.

The names and details of all the children in this research have been changedso as to respect confidentiality.

This research was carried out with support from the Disaster Emergency Committee (DEC).

Photos from: The Quality Care Research Team

Design by: Denny Salazie

Published by:

Save the Children UK, Jl. Pejaten Barat No. 8 Jakarta, Indonesia;

The Ministry of Social Affairs (DEPSOS), Jl. Salemba Raya No. 28 Jakarta, Indonesia;

UNICEF, Wisma Metropolitan II, 10-11th. Floor, Jl. Jend. Sudirman Kav. 31, Jakarta, Indonesia

© Save the Children, DEPSOS RI and UNICEF

ISBN: 978-979-15511-2-0

This publication may be freely used, quoted, reproduced, translated or distributed in part or in full byany non-profit organisation provided copyright is acknowledged and no fees or charges are made.


page

iii

The Quality of Care in Childcare Institutions in Indonesia

This report was written by Florence Martin and Tata Sudrajat, Child Protection Advisorswith Save the Children UK based in the Indonesian Ministry of Social Affairs (DEPSOS).

It is based on the results of research carried out as a joint collaboration between DEPSOS,Save the Children and a team of social workers and social scientists from STKS Bandung, theUniversity of Indonesia and the Islamic State University -UIN Jakarta. It was carried out withsupport from UNICEF and the International Save the Children Alliance.

The research team was:

Research Leaders: Florence Martin and Tata Sudrajat.Team Leaders: Kanya Eka Santi and Harry Hikmat.

The Researchers were:

Aceh West Kalimantan

Kanya Eka Santi (Team Leader) Kanya Eka Santi (Team Leader)Tuti Kartika Tuti KartikaEllya Susilowati Ellya SusilowatiDwi Yuliani Yanuar Farida WismayantiDiatyka Widya Diatyka WidyaAndriani Johar Andriani JoharHayuannisa Rimadhani Lisma Dyawati Fuaida

Suradi

Maluku North Sulawesi

Kanya Eka Santi (Team Leader) Harry Hikmat (Team Leader)Tuti Kartika Meiti SubardhiniEllya Susilowati Dorang LuhpuriDwi Yuliani Ismet FirdausDiatyka Widya Alit KurniasariAlit Kurniasari Endang SrihadiHayuannisa Rimadhani Dwi Yuliani

Imron Rosadi

NTB Central Java

Kanya Eka Santi (Team Leader) Harry Hikmat (Team Leader)Tuti Kartika Meiti SubardhiniEllya Susilowati Dorang LuhpuriYanuar Farida Wismayanti Ismet FirdausUntung Basuki Alit KurniasariLisma Dyawati Fuaida Endang SrihadiSuradi Dwi Yuliani

Imron Rosadi

DEPSOS Institution in Pati, Central Java

Kanya Eka Santi (Team Leader)Tuti KartikaDiatyka Widya


page

iv

FOREWORDDirector General for Social Services and Rehabilitation

Social care institutions, including childcare institutions have been a core part of the work of theMinistry of Social Affairs since it was first established. These institutions have been a crucial and inherentpart of the policies and program of social welfare assistance to individuals facing social problems. Whileit is likely that social care institutions are going to continue to play an important role in the delivery ofassistance to people who are facing social problems, the social and political situation in Indonesia haschanged a great deal since these institutions were first devised. As a response to the changing socialsituation, a review of the role these institutions play must be carried out to ensure they respond appropriatelyto the social challenges people/members of our community face.

In that context, I am very happy to receive this research and the findings from this report. Untilnow, we have had no research to provide us with a comprehensive and in-depth picture of the quality ofcare provided to children in childcare institutions, whether from the perspective of management, humanresources, and facilities or from the perspective of the professionalism of the services provided includingin the care of children. By carrying out such an assessment in 37 childcare institutions across 6 provinces,the research provides us with a picture of the situation of childcare institutions in Indonesia. This researchprovides very important data for the government and for organizations that support or are involved inthe running of childcare institutions so that they can review the role and approach taken by theseinstitutions in the provision of welfare and protection services for children. This research also helps us torespond to one of the recommendations of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child which requestedthe Government of Indonesia to carry out a comprehensive assessment of the situation of children ininstitutional care. The increasing number of children who are outside of parental care and the use ofinstitutions as the usual way of responding to the situation of these children should be reviewed. TheMinistry has made the review of policies and services for children without parental care and the developmentof standards of care for institutions caring for children a priority.

This research is the result of collaboration between the Ministry of Social Affairs, Save theChildren, and Unicef. I very much appreciate these joint efforts and I would like to warmly thank Save theChildren UK, Unicef, the offices of Social Affairs at the provincial and district level, and also the childcareinstitutions that took part in this research for enabling this important work to take place. In particular, Iwould like to thank Florence Martin and Tata Sudrajat of Save the Children UK as research leaders andthe research teams from DEPSOS, STKS, the University of Indonesia, and the State Islamic University.

Jakarta, December 1st 2007Director General for

Social Services and Rehabilitation

Makmur Sunusi, Ph.DNIP. 170010847


page

v

FOREWORDCountry Director, Save the Children UK

The adoption of Law No 23 on Child Protection in 2002 represented a milestone in theimplementation of children’s rights in Indonesia, in particular their right to protection from all forms ofviolence, abuse, neglect and exploitation. The work towards the implementation of that framework forthe protection of children has begun but it will entail not only the revision of Guidelines and policies, insome cases it will entail a complete review of how services have been delivered to support children whoare in need of protection. This is particularly true of the situation of children who are living outside ofparental care. Indonesia has always recognised the primary responsibility of families and parents to carefor and to protect their children and we know that millions of children who are not being cared for bytheir parents, for whatever reason, are being cared for in their extended families. The services andassistance that should be in place to enable them to do so properly and adequately, have unfortunatelynot always been in place. Instead, the focus of interventions by government and community basedagencies has been on supporting institutions rather than supporting children and their families.

The result, as this research evidences, is deeply worrying. Not only the number of children ininstitutional care has been rising consistently, the crucial role that extended families and other familiesplay in the care of these children has been ignored. Meanwhile, the quality of services provided by vastnumbers of childcare institutions in Indonesia is left unregulated. The Ministry of Social Affairs hasrecognised the urgent need to rethink how services to children and families who are outside of parentalcare are provided. This joint research represents a very important first step towards the development ofevidence-based policies and standards that will ensure that children’s right to a family and to grow andbe cared for within a family-like environment is at all times protected and supported.

Jakarta, 1st December 2007SAVE THE CHILDREN UK

Country Director

Kevin Byrne


page

vi

FOREWORDUNICEF Representative in Indonesia

Children have the right to live in a caring family environment and Governments have a responsibilityto develop policies and practices that support and strengthen families and communities to appropriatelycare for their children. Yet up to half a million children in Indonesia are separated from families andplaced in child care institutions for a lengthy period of time and the numbers continue to increase fromyear to year. Unfortunately, this study clearly indicates that children deprived of family environment andplaced in childcare institutions in Indonesia receive less stimulation, individual attention and love. Theirvoices are rarely heard and in the worst scenarios, they lose contact with their families and some evensuffer physical and psychological abuse. The findings of this study are strikingly similar to findings of manyinternational studies on child care institutions, which usually demonstrate that institutional care rarelymeets children’s developmental needs and prepares them poorly for adult life.

This study also establishes that the overwhelming majority of children in child care institutions haveone, if not both, surviving parents. It also shows that many of the families are placing their children in childcare institutions in order to ensure access to education. Hence, the bulk of institutional placement ofchildren in Indonesia could be avoided, if more emphasis was placed on providing direct economic andsocial support to vulnerable families to enable them to care for and ensure access to education for theirchildren.UNICEF’s global experience has consistently demonstrated that a carefully tailored package ofdirect support to families can help the family overcome difficulties and allow children to grow up underthe care and protection of their families.

The findings of this research highlight the importance of increased efforts by the Government,donors, humanitarian, religious and non-governmental organisations to support families in a variety ofways that can enable children to stay with their immediate or extended families. It also suggests the needto provide positive care options for children who require alternative living arrangements within a familyenvironment and improve the quality of care in child care institutions across Indonesia. Above all, it iscritical to ensure that institutional placement of children only occurs if and when it is in the best interestsof the child, and that there is a periodic assessment and review of the decisions and circumstancesrelevant to the child’s placement.

UNICEF urges the Government of Indonesia, local and international organizations involved in thedelivery of child care services and the donor groups in the country to use the findings and recommendationsin this report to guide and inform their decisions to affect positive change for the most vulnerablechildren in Indonesia who are currently in children’s homes or are at risk of being placed away from theirparents or relatives.

We thank the research leaders and the research team who were involved in undertaking this studyand putting together this comprehensive report. UNICEF is also grateful to the staff of the Ministry ofSocial Affairs, to the collaborative work with Save the Children UK, to the staff of Childcare institutions aswell as children who played an important role in achieving this endeavor.

Jakarta, December 2007

Dr. Gianfranco RotiglianoUNICEF Representative in Indonesia


page

vii

Table of Content

I. Introduction to the research................................................ 1

II. Scope and framework for the research .............................. 5

Life story 1: Ana (West Kalimantan) ................................................................. 10

III. Social welfare and childcare institutions in Indonesia ...... 17A. Residential Care in Indonesia today: numbers and trends .... 17B. The policy context: the role of childcare institutions ............ 23C. Childcare institutions as social services ..................................... 28

Financing social services through institutions? ................................... 28Indonesia: a social welfare society? ....................................................... 30Joint responsibility or no responsibility? ............................................... 32Decentralisation: the changing role of DEPSOS. ............................... 32

IV. National standards for childcare ......................................... 37

V. International standards relating to children withoutparental care .................................................................... 43Save the Children’s Quality Standards for childcare provisions ................. 47

Life story 2: Sumi (Central Java) .......................................................................... 49

VI. Characteristics of the 6 Provinces ....................................... 51

VII. Profiles of the institutions assessed and the childrenin their care .................................................................... 63The institutions ...................................................................................... 63• Ownership status ............................................................................ 64• Links with other services provided by their

parents organisations ...................................................................... 66• Operational Range .......................................................................... 67• Legal Status ...................................................................................... 69• Year of establishment and beginning of operation .................. 70• Type of care services ...................................................................... 71• Funding and Assistance ................................................................... 72The Children ...................................................................................... 76• Numbers and Sex ............................................................................ 77


page

viii

• Age ...................................................................................... 82• Parental Status .................................................................................. 83• Education Levels .............................................................................. 85• Home location ................................................................................. 86• Length of placement ....................................................................... 87

Life Story 3: Ali (Maluku) ...................................................................................... 89

VIII. Values and Aims of the Childcare Institutions ................... 93Institutions’ vision of their role and the children they care for ................... 96Children’s own perspectives of the aims of their institutions ..................... 101Knowledge and understanding of childcare standards ................................ 103

IX. Professional practice ............................................................. 107• Outreach and recruitment ............................................................ 107• Selection criteria .............................................................................. 115• Admission process .......................................................................... 121• Care planning .................................................................................... 128• Care and other services ................................................................ 132• Review of the child’s progress/development ............................ 139• Review of services and management .......................................... 142• Children leaving care and after care ........................................... 143• Child protection policy and practice .......................................... 155

Life story 4: Siti (West Kalimantan) ................................................................... 156

Life Stories 5: Children affected by conflict and disaster(Maluku and Aceh) ........................................................................... 158

Life Story 6: Lina (North Sulawesi) .................................................................... 179

X. Personal Care .................................................................... 181• Food ...................................................................................... 182• Quality and quantity of food in relation to

available funding ............................................................................... 183• Health ...................................................................................... 186• Education ...................................................................................... 189• Play and Recreation ......................................................................... 194• Children’s work ................................................................................ 197• Privacy ...................................................................................... 202• Choice ...................................................................................... 206• Dignity ...................................................................................... 208• Social Relations ................................................................................ 211

Relations between the children and staff/managers ....................... 211Relations between children ..................................................................... 213Relations between the children and their parents ......................... 215Relations between the children and the community ...................... 218Relations at School ............................................................................. 219

• Identity ...................................................................................... 220

Life Story 7: Yasmin and Zahra (West Kalimantan) ....................................... 223

• Supervision and Sanctions ............................................................. 225


page

ix

• Children’s voices .............................................................................. 230• Under-5s and Small Children ........................................................ 232

XI. Staffing .................................................................... 235• Recruitment and selection ............................................................ 235• Supervision and support ................................................................ 239• Deployment/ roles .......................................................................... 241

Staff numbers and ratio .......................................................................... 241Age Profile ............................................................................................. 244Length of Service ....................................................................................... 245Status of Staff ............................................................................................ 246Positions ............................................................................................. 248

• Training and Professional Development ..................................... 248

XII. Resources .................................................................... 251• Location and design ........................................................................ 251• Accommodation .............................................................................. 252

XIII. Administration .................................................................... 255• Record keeping ................................................................................ 255• Confidentiality .................................................................................. 256• Role of manager, owners ............................................................... 257

XIV. PATI: the DEPSOS Model ..................................................... 259

XV. Key Findings .................................................................... 271

Life Story 8: Yudha (West Kalimantan) ............................................................ 291

XVI. Recommendations ................................................................ 299References ............................................................................................. 307

Appendix I: Individual Research Reports and authors .................................. 310


page

x

Tables and Graphs

Table 1 Average Number of childcare institutions according to BBMfigures per 100.000 population per province. .................................... 20

Table 2 Population Breakdown for the 0 - 18 years of age in the6 Provinces. 2003 ....................................................................................... 52

Table 3 Net Enrolment Rates by 6 Provinces and accordingto Sex Year 2003 ........................................................................................ 53

Table 4 Number and Percentage of Poor People in the 6Provinces in 2004 ...................................................................................... 54

Table 5 Human Poverty Index for the 6 Provinces and Indonesia ............... 55Table 6 Number of Neglected Children according to Depsos, and

numbers who received or were targeted for Depsos assistance in 2004 in the 6 Provinces. ..................................................................... 56

Table 7 Violations committed by children and punishmentsreceived ............................................................................................. 170

Table 8 Educational Attainments ........................................................................... 237Table 9 Age profile of staffs ................................................................................... 244Table 10 Length of Service ....................................................................................... 245

Graph 1 Location of the research (6 provinces), indicated with theorange colour ............................................................................................. 6

Graph 2 Ownership Status of the childcare institutions .................................. 64Graph 3 Link between childcare institutions and other services

provided by parent organisation ............................................................ 67Graph 4 Operational range of Parent Organisation .......................................... 68Graph 5 Legal Status of Private childcare institutions ....................................... 69Graph 6 Year childcare institutions started operations .................................... 70Graph 7 Type of care services ................................................................................ 71Graph 8 Types and sources of funding and assistance received

by institution ............................................................................................. 73Graph 9 Gender breakdown of children in the 36 institutions ...................... 77Graph 10 Comparison between the number of boys and girls in the

36 institutions per Province .................................................................... 79Graph 11 Age Range of children in childcare institutions .................................. 82Graph 12 Parental Status ............................................................................................ 83Graph 13 Education Levels ......................................................................................... 85Graph 14 School location for the children in the institutions ........................... 86Graph 15 Home location ............................................................................................ 87Graph 16 Length of placement ................................................................................. 88Graph 17 Educational Backgrounds ......................................................................... 238Graph 18 Number of Staff ......................................................................................... 242Graph 19 Employee Status ......................................................................................... 245Graph 20 Positions of Staffs ....................................................................................... 246Graph 21 Training Events Participated In ............................................................... 248


page

xi

Acknowledgments

This research would not have been possible without the efforts, support, energyand patience of a lot of people. In many ways, the learning, the team building, thesharing and the enormous capacity building exercise this project has entailed werejust as crucial to its outcome as the 38 reports that summarize what was found.We hope that this process opens the door a little for hundreds of thousands ofchildren in childcare institutions in Indonesia whose situations, voices and rightshave for far too long been unknown.

We would like to thank, first and foremost, our wonderful research teams whoworked incredibly hard to understand, learn and share their findings about thesituation of children in childcare institutions across 6 provinces. We have beenreally privileged to work with them and are looking forward to working with themagain in translating this learning into practice!

This research would not have been possible without the cooperation, supportand active participation of the managers, staffs and children of the childcare institutionswho not only opened their doors to us but shared their time, their views and theirexperiences with us. We thank them for their openness, generosity and theirwillingness to share their lives.

We would like to give particular thanks to the Heads of the Social Affairs Officesboth at the provincial level and at the district/municipality level in the six provincesthat have provided us with crucial support throughout the process of data collectionin the field.

From our partners in the Ministry of Social Affairs, we would like to thank inparticular the Director and the staffs from the Directorate for Children’s Services,Ms. Sri Rahayu, Mr. Hanif Asmara, Mr. Totok Heriyanto, Ms. Endah and also Ms. Aamwho provided overall supervision and technical support to the research teams.

Our thanks also go to UNICEF’s Child Protection team in Indonesia for theirsupport and contribution throughout this project.

This research, and indeed our work, would not be possible without the supportand direction provided by Mr. Makmur Sunusi, Director General for Social Servicesand Rehabilitation in the Ministry of Social Affairs. We thank him warmly for that andwe hope that this research can support the Ministry in fulfilling its key responsibilityfor the protection of children in Indonesia.

Finally our thanks go to our colleagues in Save the Children who have given usthe support, time and advice needed to carry out this project to the end, in particularKevin Byrne, SC UK Country Director and the entire support team in Pejaten,without whom this work would simply not have been possible.


page

xii

Acronyms and Abbreviations

APBD Anggaran Pendapatan dan Belanja Daerah (Local governmentbudget)

BOS Bantuan Operasional Sekolah (Government’s OperationalAssistance to School) A financial support scheme for primaryand junior high school that was established to compensate for adecrease in Governmental subsidy for fuel

BPS Biro Pusat Statistik (Central Bureau of Statistics)

BRR Badan Rehabilitasi dan Rekonstruksi (The Bureau for Rehabiltationand Reconstruction, responsible for overall coordination of thereconstruction effort in NAD Province)

Dana dekon Deconcentration fund from the central government to theprovincial government

Dayah Name for Pesantren in Aceh, Islamic Religious Boarding Schools

DEPSOS Departemen Sosial (Ministry of Social Affairs)

DINSOS Dinas Sosial (Office of Social Affairs) both at the Province leveland at district level

FGD Focus Group Discussion (Diskusi Kelompok Terfokus)

Hidayatullah The name of an Islamic organization with national networkcoverage

HPI Human Poverty Index (Indeks Kemiskinan Manusia/IKM)

KHA/CRC Konvensi Hak Anak (Convention on the Rights of the Child)

LPA Lembaga Perlindungan Anak (Child Protection Body)

MI Madrasah Ibtidaiyah (Islamic school at primary school level)

MTS Madrasah Tsanawiyah (Islamic school at junior hidh school

MA Madrasah Aliyah (Islamic school at senior high school level)

Muhammadiyah The name of an Islamic organization with national networkcoverage

NAD Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam, the official name for the AutonomousProvince of Aceh

NTB Nusa Tenggara Barat (West Nusa Tenggara, Province of Indonesia)

NU Nahdatul Ulama (the name of an Islamic organization with nationalnetwork coverage)

NW Nahdatul Wathon (a name of one Islamic organization with nationalnetwork coverage)

ORSOS Organisasi Sosial (NGO and Community Based Organization)

Pesantren Islamic Religious Boarding Schools


page

xiii

PSAA/PA Panti Sosial Asuhan Anak/Panti Asuhan (Childcare Institution orChildren’s Home, sometimes referred to as an orphanage)

PSBR Panti Sosial Bina Remaja (Vocational training centre for teenagerswho have dropped out of school)

Puskesmas Pusat Kesehatan Masyarakat (Community Health Center)

SD Sekolah Dasar (Primary/Elementary School)

SLTP Sekolah Lanjutan Tingkat Pertama (Junior High School)

SLTA Sekolah Lanjutan Tingkat Atas (Senior High School)

SIK Surat Izin Kegiatan (Operational Authorization Letter)

UN United Nations (PBB)

Ustadz/ustadzah Islamic teacher (male/female)


page

xiv

“Someone That Matters” | I. Introduction to the research

page

1

I. Introduction to the research

IN 1990 INDONESIA ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and it has sincereported twice to the Committee on the Rights of the Child, the body responsible for monitoringthe implementation of the Convention. Following its review of the last government report in2004, the Committee made some important recommendations in relation to the situation ofchildren deprived of a family environment. In particular, the Committee expressed concernsabout the high number of children living in institutions in Indonesia. It recommended that theIndonesian Government “undertake a comprehensive study to assess the situation of children placedin institutions, including their living conditions and the services provided”.1

There are an estimated 7000 childcare institutions2 across Indonesia caring for up to half amillion children. The Indonesian government itself owns and runs only a handful of thoseinstitutions, less than 40. The vast majority of these institutions were set up privately, particularly


page

2

by faith based organisations. While manyreceive some financial support from thegovernment, most do not come under any typeof supervision or monitoring. In fact, thegovernment does not have any data aboutinstitutions that do not receive its financialsubsidy and it only has very limited data onthose that do.

Very little research or data is availableabout residential care in Indonesia. The lack ofa proper registration and accreditation systemmeans that DEPSOS and agencies working onchild protection do not even know exactly howmany institutions there are, or how manychildren are in those institutions, let alonewhich children are being cared for in them. Italso means that these agencies do not knowto what extent existing guidelines are beingapplied or are relevant to the situation in thoseinstitutions. Most monitoring of childcareinstitutions carried out by DEPSOS in thechildcare institutions is limited to the initialregistration of the organisation under whichthe institution operates and limited financialreporting for those institutions that havereceived direct financial support. Despitehaving adopted in 2004 guidelines for theaccreditation of social care institutionsincluding childcare institutions, which is dueto be administered by a Survey Team3, nosystem has yet come into force and no processof accreditation or effective monitoring hasbeen established. In addition, the main focus ofthe supervision proposed under the guidelinesis focused on ensuring that the institutions arefulfilling the standards in relation to havingproper documentation of their activities andlegal formalities rather than actual monitoringof the type and quality of care that is providedto children.

While no accurate data is available aboutthe situation of children in care, there are firmindications that the number of children whoare placed in residential care and the numberof such institutions are growing. The lack ofpractical knowledge about the situation ofthese children however is hampering the abilityof the government to develop policies that arebased on a proper understanding of thesituation of those children and the way the

institutions are or are not responding to theirrights and needs.

Save the Children has been workingclosely with the Ministry of Social Affairs toestablish an accurate picture of the situationof children without parental care acrossIndonesia. The aim is not only to understandbetter the situation of these children but alsoto ensure that fundamental standards inrelation to their care and protection, includingtheir right to grow and develop in a familyenvironment, are fully protected. In theaftermath of the tsunami and earthquakes thatdevastated much of Aceh province, Save theChildren carried out with DEPSOS a surveyof childcare institutions looking in particularat the situation of child victims of the disasterwho had been placed in institutional care.4 Thesurvey pointed to a high dependence oninstitutional care by families and communitiesthat felt unable to care for their children as aresult of the impact of that disaster on theirlives. But the research also pointed out thatfew of the children entering residential carewere orphans and that over 85% of the childvictims of the tsunami had at least one parentalive. In addition, the high level of aid directedtowards childcare institutions rather thantargeted directly to support families facing

“Someone That Matters” | I. Introduction to the research

page

3

difficulties, together with an established patternof reliance on institutional care, had combinedto create a situation where a very high numberof new institutions were being built drawing inturn increasing number of families to place theirchildren in institutions so they could securebasic necessities for them including food,shelter and education.

Following the findings of this research,DEPSOS, Save the Children and UNICEFrecognised the need to work urgently towardsa better understanding of the situation ofchildren in residential care not only in Acehand in a post emergency context butnationwide including in the diverse contextsto be found across the archipelago. Asrecommended by the Committee on the Rightsof the Child, research was needed to look atthe actual situation of these children and toassess the care and services they were actuallygetting in those institutions. As a result theseagencies decided to undertake a major pieceof qualitative research into childcareinstitutions across 6 provinces of Indonesia.

Throughout this research the lack of evenbasic existing data on the situation of theinstitutions and children within thoseinstitutions nationwide was recognised as amajor challenge. At the same time it wasimperative to go beyond the numbers to lookat what actually happens within thoseinstitutions and how children are being caredfor and by whom. The research is thereforepart of broader efforts by DEPSOS and itscollaborating agencies to develop a much moreaccurate picture of the situation of institutionscaring for children including through thedevelopment of a data collection system atboth national and local levels. Save the Childrenin that regard is helping DEPSOS to developsuch a system including a database and networkat national, provincial and district levels toensure that regular data is collected from thecare institutions and that an overall picture canfinally be built.5

It was also crucial to involve keystakeholders from the very start in theresearch development, throughout theassessment itself and finally in the analysis of

the findings. As can be seen from the veryhigh estimated number of children ininstitutions across Indonesia and as wasconfirmed by this research, the use ofresidential care as the primary form ofintervention in cases of personal, social oreconomic crisis is very entrenched in Indonesia.This is the case not only in terms of thegovernment’s own responses to childprotection concerns but also in terms of theconsiderable work and philanthropy being doneby community organisations, in particular faithbased groups, to support children and familieswho are deemed vulnerable across the country.While Indonesia is certainly not unique inhaving to critically review a system where theinstitutionalisation of children is a veryentrenched practice, it also needs to considerthe enormous contribution and involvementof community and religious groups in the actualdelivery of social services to children and theirfamilies at the local level. As such, it is crucialthat the knowledge, the understanding andexpertise of Indonesians who work and careabout child protection is made a key part ofthis important process of review. It will notonly ensure that better understanding of thecontext and the issues faced by children andfamilies in their daily lives is provided but thatthe solutions and identification of betteralternatives are rooted firmly with those thathave the long term responsibility for theprotection of Indonesian children.

In order to ensure this, the researchproject was very much a collaborative projectinvolving not only staff from the Ministry ofSocial Affairs but key senior lecturers from theSchool of Social Works such as STKS inBandung, the University of Indonesia in Jakartaand the Islamic State University (UIN -Jakarta).As researchers and team leaders, thoseindividuals were able to develop crucialunderstanding of the situation of children ininstitutions and the situation of the institutionsthemselves. Their knowledge and their effortsnot only resulted in the findings of this researchbut also provide a strong basis for future effortsto reform and establish an alternative caresystem that is more appropriate to the needsand rights of children in Indonesia.


page

4

Footnotes:1 CRC/C/15/Add.223 (26 February 2004). Consideration of reports submitted by State Parties under Article 44 of the

Convention: Concluding Observations Indonesia. Para 49-50, page 9. For Indonesia’s second periodic report tothe CRC see: CRC/C/65/Add.23 submitted on 5 February 2002.

2 This estimate was provided by Mr Makmur Sunusi, then Director for Child Welfare Services in the Ministry of SocialAffairs, Republic of Indonesia, as quoted in ‘Supporting the Development of the Alternative Care System at Regional(Aceh) and National Levels in Indonesia’ by International Social Service and UNICEF (2005). The term‘childcareinstitutions’ in this report refers only to Social Institutions for the Care of Children, Panti Sosial Asuhan Anak(PSAA), sometimes also called “Neglected Children’s Homes” or “Children’s Homes”. It does not include othersocial or justice institutions where children may also be residing.

3 Guidelines on the Accreditation of the Social Care Institution (Panti Sosial) Keputusan Menteri Sosial Republik ofIndonesia No: 50/HUK/2004. Appendix III.

4 DEPSOS/Save the Children: A Rapid Assessment of the Childcare institutions in post-Tsunami Aceh. (2006)5 These efforts are part of Save the Children’s work in supporting the Indonesian Government through the Ministry of

Social Affairs to implement also the other three recommendations made by the Committee on the Rights of theChild in relation to children deprived of their family environment:

(b) Develop programmes and policies to prevent the placement of children in institutions, inter alia by providingsupport and guidance to the most vulnerable families and by conducting awareness-raising campaigns;

(c) Take all necessary measures to allow children placed in institutions to return to their families whenever possibleand consider the placement of children in institutions as a measure of last resort;

(d) Set clear standards for existing institutions and ensure periodic review of the placement of children, in light ofarticle 25 of the Convention. CRC/C/15/Add.223 (26 February 2004). Para 50.

“Someone That Matters” | II. Scope and framework for the research

page

5

II. Scope and framework forthe research

THIS RESEARCH INVOLVED identifying and assessing in depth the quality of care providedto children in a number of childcare institutions (Panti Sosial Asuhan Anak), sometimes alsoreferred to as ‘neglected children’s institutions’ across 6 provinces of Indonesia. As a qualitativepiece of research, it does not seek to draw statistical generalisations about the situation ofchildren in those institutions but instead provides in depth case studies of a number of thosehomes. At the same time, the institutions selected were chosen according to certain criteria toensure that they are as representative as possible of the diverse range of institutions in a givenprovince. Similarly, the Provinces were chosen according to a range of criteria aimed at ensuringthat Indonesia’s diverse socio, cultural and economic contexts were represented. As a result, theresearch and case studies provide comprehensive information about the care situation of childrenacross a sufficiently diverse number of institutions to enable the identification of trends, approachesand understanding in relation to the care of children in institutions in Indonesia.


page

6

Clearly, the qualitative approach meantthat only a small number of institutions perprovince could be selected for an in depthassessment. It was felt more important to geta comprehensive understanding of the care andservices children are actually getting ratherthan get a superficial overview of theinstitutions which would be unlikely to yieldreal understanding about the situation there.The research team identified 7 basic variableswhich needed to be represented in theselected institutions:

1. Ownership of childcare institutions:Government or non governmentalorganization

2. Client/target group of the childcareinstitutions: only for boys, only forgirls, or mixed.

3. Capacity of the institutions: < 50,50 – 100, > 100 children.

4. Type of childcare institutions

5. Care system used by the institutions

6. Geographical setting of the childcareinstitutions in terms of urban or ruralcontext

7. Organizational characteristic of thefounding/parent organisation thatdeveloped the childcare institution

Similarly the Provinces were selectedaccording to some key variables which were

felt would represent a range of importantfactors that are present in the Indonesiancontext such as whether the area ispredominantly under one religion or is an areaknown for its pluralistic make up, whether ithas been affected by insecurity including as aresult of conflict or disaster, as well as othersocial, cultural and economic factors. As aresult, 6 Provinces were selected:

1. Aceh (Mainly Moslem area/ conflictand disaster area)

2. NTB (Mainly Moslem area)

3. North Sulawesi (Mainly Christianarea).

4. West Kalimantan (Post-Conflict/pluralistic area)

5. North Maluku (Post-conflict area)

6. Central Java (Pluralistic area)

Teams of 7 assessors and one team leaderwere established for each Province. Theresearch was overseen by 2 research leadersfrom Save the Children UK who are secondedas child protection advisers to the Directorateof Children’s Services in DEPSOS.

The research methodology used at itsstarting point the standards for quality childcare developed by Save the Children UK inEastern and Central Africa and tested in anumber of countries across that region.1 The‘quality childcare standards’ provided a useful

Graph 1. Location of the research (6 provinces) within Indonesia (in orange)

Aceh

NTB

NorthSulawesi

WestKalimantan

Maluku

CentralJava


page

7

basis on which to discuss an Indonesia relevantframework for assessment as they are practicalstandards based on relevant internationalstandards relating to children in ‘out of homecare’. In addition, an international consultantwho had been involved in the development ofthe Quality of Care standards for east andCentral Africa, Neil Mc Millan, was invited toIndonesia to provide technical support duringthe development of the tools for Indonesia,the training of the teams and the initial pilotingof the tools.

The research team including the teamleaders and the international consultantdiscussed each of the quality standards in thecontext of Indonesia and developed a matrixof questions and issues to be assessed undereach of the standards and added to thestandards where issues relevant to theIndonesia context were not identified. Thedevelopment of the methodology, the tools,the training of the teams and the piloting ofthe research tools took place from July 2006to September 2006. The field research tookplace in 2 stages, the first from September toOctober 2006, and the second one fromJanuary-March 2007. A separate assessmentof a DEPSOS run childcare institution which isheld as a national model was carried out inMay 2007.

The assessment was carried out usingquestionnaires detailing the profile of theinstitution and the children cared for by theinstitution, in-depth interviews with thepersonnel from the institution and the parentorganisation including the head or manager ofthe institution as well as carers and othersupport staff, teachers from the schools, thechildren themselves and some parents; FocusGroup discussions with staff, teachers andchildren and finally close observation over a2-4 day period for each institution. Datacollected was cross-checked throughtriangulation across respondents to ensure theaccuracy of the information collected. Thematrix provided the framework under whicheach issue needed to be qualitatively assessedand measured, as well as recorded while thequestionnaires were used to record and

compare quantitative data in relation to thesituation of the children and the institutions.

Children’s informed involvement wassought at all times as they are crucialstakeholders in the services the institutionsprovide. As the beneficiaries from the services,they are particularly well placed to identifywhether those services actually fulfil theirobjectives. A child friendly notice wasdeveloped and posted in various places in eachinstitution, informing the children of theresearch, identifying the aims, the ways theycould get involved and the individuals to whichthey could report any suggestions, ideas orcritic about their situation or about theresearch. A consent form was developed andused specifically to ensure that children wereaware of how the information they gave wouldbe used and that they would participate in afully informed way in this research. In addition,consent forms for the use of photographs andvideo cameras were used.

At the same time, the research was acutelyaware of the need to place children’s protectionfrom abuse, neglect and exploitation at theforefront of this research. Save the Children’sChild Protection Policy requires that allindividuals and organisation working with Savethe Children understand the potential for theabuse of children in the context of its workand ensures that it is at all times prevented aswell as responded to. In the case of thisparticular research, the teams were trained onthe policy and it was made clear that at nostage should the protection of children in theseinstitutions be undermined as a result of thisresearch. Bearing in mind the nature ofinstitutional care and the particularvulnerabilities of children living in anenvironment where power relations are starklydelineated, the safety of the children was madethe paramount consideration. As a result, theidentity of the children involved has beenprotected and a coding system has been usedin the research reports.

The research was carried out with the fullsupport of the Provincial Department of SocialServices (DINSOS) and the District level socialoffices.


page

8

It was jointly financed by UNICEF and Savethe Children under the guidance and supportof the Director General for Social andRehabilitation Services and the Sub-directoratefor Neglected Children in the Children’sServices Directorate in DEPSOS.

This research has resulted in 37 individualreports detailing the quality of care in 37institutions (6 per province plus one institutionin Central Java owned by DEPSOS and run asa national model). The reports are available inIndonesian and will be shared and used tosupport those childcare institutions and therelevant authorities to improve the quality ofcare for children and to strengthen theunderstanding and capacity of staffs andorganisations running childcare institutions. ACD of the entire research including the 37reports, this report and the research tools usedis available.

Some of the key challenges faced by thisresearch related to the almost total lack ofreliable data either quantitative or qualitativeabout children in institutional care. It isparticularly telling that to this day, even basicdata about government run institutions whichare just a handful of the total, is not available.The data that is available is also often extremelylimited as it relates either to the situation priorto decentralisation in 2000 or it was gatheredonly in the context of providing financialassistance and provides only the name of theinstitution and the number of children.

Another major challenge was that therewas little existing experience in the Ministryor in the Universities and School of Social Workof carrying out a qualitative assessment ofservices provided by such institutions.Involvement with institutions generally tendedto be in the context of providing financialassistance or aid, or in the context of shortterm placements (practical internships) ofstudents from some of the social welfareschools. These apparently rarely provided anyroom for critical observation and discussionswith staff, managers or children of the situationin the institution. As a result going into aninstitution to carry out objective observation,to ask questions, to discuss concept and

understanding, to talk to children and staffabout difficulties and challenges, or to carryout in depth interviews separately as well asfocus groups discussions, was seen to be a realchallenge at the outset. The approach thatmost team members were used to was onewhere the manager or head of the institutionwould be interviewed and whatever was saidwould be taken uncritically. The concept of anassessment where probing may be needed wasfelt to be potentially confrontational and teammembers had to think through new ways ofobtaining information without confrontationbut also without taking whatever was said byfigures of authority as a given. In the veryhierarchical context of relationships inIndonesia that was in itself a real challenge. Atthe same time, this process was a very keypart of the learning in this research as no qualitycare system for childcare institutions can beestablished without people who understandnot only what quality care is but also that havethe key skills required to carry out anassessment of services provided as well as theability to measure and monitor the extent towhich standards are implemented andunderstood. In that regard, throughout thisresearch the teams demonstrated fast growingconfidence, expertise and skills in carrying outrigorous and in depth assessments of childcareinstitutions and this now constitutes anextremely good basis for the development ofappropriate quality care standards and aneffective regulatory system.

It is important to note in this context thatgenerally the childcare institutions were verycooperative and open in giving access to theresearch team to their institutions, their staffand the children in their care. The teams werewelcome in all of the institutions and managersand staff were generous both with their timeand cooperation this research. As noassessment had ever been carried out before,the research teams were unsure of whetheraccess would always be forthcoming andwhether managers would be willing to see theirstaff as well as children interviewedindependently. In fact, almost all welcomedthe teams and the government’s interest in theservices they provide and the work they do.


page

9

Footnotes:

1 Save the Children UK (2005): Raising the Standards: Quality Childcare Provision in East and Central Africa andD. Swales (2006): Applying the Standards -improving quality child care provision in East and Central Africa. Savethe Children UK.

This demonstrated impressively that despitethe lack of a licensing and regulatory system,childcare institutions did see a role for thegovernment in supporting and assisting theirwork. In some cases, institutions had actuallyeagerly expected such a process to happen andrequested more involvement and moreguidance from the government at both localand national level. On the other hand, it wascrucial for the research to move away fromthe usual relationship and expectation offinancial assistance from the government andinternational agencies towards a relationshipbased on supporting the delivery ofprofessional services. It will be crucial to buildon this research and ensure that follow up is

provided including in discussing the findingsfrom the individual assessment with each ofthe childcare institutions and the localauthorities, in particular the local departmentof social services, to ensure this constructiverelationship is followed up on and real technicalsupport provided. The research also receivedvery positive support from the Provincial andDistrict Offices of Social Affairs (Dinas Sosial)which not only facilitated contact with theinstitutions but which were in many casesthemselves very interested in the result of theresearch and asked for continuing involvementand support from the Ministry of Social Affairsrelating to the situation of childcare institutionsand neglected children within their jurisdiction.


page

10

A. Particulars:

Status of Parents: Mother deceased, fatheralive.

Brothers and Sisters: Ana is the second of 5children (one of whom passed away).

Religion: Roman Catholic

Ethnic Group: Dayak

Length of time in institution: 11 years, enteredin 1996 when in grade 1 of elementaryschool.

B. Family Background:

Ana’s father works as a farmer. Hegoes off to the fields every day. Her motheralways used to help her father in the fields,where the family grew rice. All of her familyhave been to school. Ana’s elder siblinghas graduated from high school, while oneof her younger siblings is in grade 1 ofhigh school and the next in grade 6 ofelementary school. Ana’s other youngersibling passed away following an illness.Ana’s elder sister has a family and lives inPontianak.

Ana’s family home is located in Selabivillage, located approximately one day awayfrom Pontianak. From Pontianak toBengkayang by bus takes about 6 hours,and costs Rp 30,000 (USD 3). FromBengkayang to Sebalo it takes around 2hours by minibus, and costs Rp 20,000(USD 2). Then, from Sebalo to Ana’s villagetakes around 2 hours by ojek (motorcycletaxi), and costs Rp 50,000 (USD 5). So, ifAna wants to go home to see her family,it costs her around Rp 100,000 each way,making it Rp 200,000 (USD 20) for a roundtrip.

C. Life before entering the childcareinstitution

1. Mother’s DeathAna’s mother passed away in 1994

when she was 5. Her mother was vomitingup blood before she died. It was said thatshe committed suicide. Ana heard fromher Granny that her mother had, in fact,killed herself. Apparently she wasdistraught because another woman likedher husband, and she couldn’t accept this.Consumed by jealousy, Ana’s mothercommitted suicide. After her death, theother woman began to pay even moreattention to Ana’s father, so that herhusband became jealous and had a fightwith Ana’s father. As a result, her fatherwas forced to flee to his brother’s house,leaving the children alone at home.

A day later, Ana’s father returned withhis brother so as to resolve the problemwith the family of his would-be lover. BothAna’s father and the woman were orderedto pay fines under adat (customary) lawto the community’s adat leader.

Since then, Ana’s father has remarried,this time with a Malay woman, andconverted to Islam. Ana’s siblings have alsofollowed their father’s lead and converted,with the exception of the third child inthe family, who decided to remain aCatholic.

2. Timid AnaAna has forgotten most of her family

life before entering the institution.However, she still remembers climbing upa jackfruit tree with her friends. Sheclimbed so far up the tree that she couldn’tget down again. She was stuck and all she

LIFE STORY*:

ANA, 18 years old girl (WEST KALIMANTAN)


page

11

could do was cry. Luckily, her uncle camealong and helped her down with a ladder.

Ana’s friends were all good at climbing –only Ana couldn’t do it. As a result, sheused to be teased by her friends. In theend she decided that she was going toclimb up a tree come what may. And soshe got stuck.

D. Life after entering the childcareinstitution

1. Background to her entering the institutionAna entered the institution in 1996

when she was 7. She was told about it byher uncle, who lived in Pontianak, quitenear to it. However, she did not enter theinstitution of her own volition, rather, shewas duped into it. Her father tried topersuade her to enter, arguing that itwould allow her to get an education.However, Ana refused as she was smalland did not want to be separated fromher father and siblings. In order to ensurethat she entered the institution, Ana’sfather lied by telling her that she had beeninvited to visit her uncle’s house for 3 days,after which she would be brought homeagain. Ana wanted to visit her uncle, butdidn’t realize that after she got toPontianak she would be placed in theinstitution. After being left there, Ana weptcontinuously. As a result, the institution’sauthorities had to call her uncle, and itwas agreed that she should be broughtback to his house again on a temporarybasis. Her uncle’s house was quite closeto the institution. During her time in heruncle’s house, she was urged continuouslyto enter the institution so that she couldget an education. Her uncle also tried toscare her by saying that if she didn’t agreeto enter it, she could walk home herselfto her village. It was after this that Anafinally agreed to enter the institution.

2. Adjusting to the childcare institutionAt the start of her time in the

institution, Ana greatly missed her family.However, she was somewhat consoled by

the fact that her uncle would visit heralmost every night, and would teach herto read the Indonesian language and othersubjects. He would also bring her extrafood almost every week. Slowly but surely,Ana came to accept living in the institution.

One of the problems she faced duringthe adjustment period was her lack ofIndonesian. This is because the means ofcommunication in the institution is theIndonesian language, in which Ana wasdeficient as she had only just arrived fromher village.

Ana’s uncle was a hard taskmasterwhen teaching. He would shout and bangthe table a lot if he felt Ana wasn’t attentiveenough or was not taking in what he wassaying.

3. Starting elementary schoolAfter she entered the institution, Ana wasimmediately enrolled in grade 1 of StateElementary School No. 42 in Pontianak.On her first day at school, she wasaccompanied by a staff member, whowaited for her the whole time she was atschool so as to make sure that she wasn’tupset. By the time a month had passed,Ana had started to adjust, and could beleft at school by the staff.

4. Experiencesa. DatingAna is now 18. She needs a close

friend with whom she can shareconfidences and affection. This need canonly be satisfied by a boyfriend. However,dating is banned in the institution.However, Ana has already violated the ruleon a number of occasions. The first timeshe had a boyfriend was when she was ingrade 1 of junior high school.

Ana’s boyfriend was also from theinstitution. The staff found out that thepair of them were together in the boys’residence. Ana was scolded andsummoned by the head of the institution.As punishment, she was ordered to cleanup the hall and make out a formal


page

12

declaration to the effect that she wouldnever repeat the offence.

Despite the punishment, Ana was notto be put off, and continued therelationship with her boyfriend. Theywould meet in turns in the boys’ and thegirls’ residences. When asked why shepersisted with the relationship, Anareplied, “We were fond of each other, in love,right?” As a result of her feelings, she wasnot afraid of being caught and punishedagain. The second time she was caught,both her and her boyfriend were orderedto run around the yard five times. Inaddition, the pair were also ordered tomake out formal declarations that theywould not repeat the violation.

Some time afterwards, the relation-ship ended. This was because of a girlfriendof Ana’s from the institution, who wasanxious to see Ana break up with herboyfriend. She laid a trap by inviting a malefriend of Ana to meet them there. Ana’sboyfriend became jealous, and therelationship came to an end.

Not long afterwards, Ana’s friendstarted a relationship with her formerboyfriend. The staff found out and the twoof them were expelled from the institution.This was because they were caughtsleeping together in one of the girl’s rooms.In fact, two couples were sleeping in thesame place.

Before being expelled, they were alsopunished. On the night in question, all ofthe children were woken up at 2 a.m. bythe staff beating on the windows. Thechildren were then assembled in front ofthe institution and ordered to hit the fouroffending children. They were to hit themas hard as they could. If the children didn’tuse all of their strength, they themselveswould be hit by staff members. All 4 ofthe offending children were reduced totears. The next day, a formal disciplinarymeeting was held, and, as a furtherpunishment, the children were ordered torun around the institution until they were

out of breath. The carrying out of thispunishment was ordered by the Head ofthe institution and witnessed by all of thestaff. After that, the four were kept inisolation for 2 months, and then expelled.

After breaking up with her firstboyfriend, Ana then became involved in arelationship with a boy named A fromoutside the institution. They often metup outside or at the house of her oldersibling. The institution’s authorities wereaware of Ana’s relationship but no actionwas taken as the couple met outside theinstitution. If A were to come to theinstitution, he would be ordered homewithin 5 minutes by the security guard.However, while Ana was not punished forengaging in a relationship, she wasnevertheless frequently warned not toreturn late in the evening and not tobecome too intimate with the boy.

b. Absent from schoolAna was absent from school for 13

days in a row as she was visiting her homevillage. Her friend failed to write a letterexplaining where she was. As a result, Anawas recorded as being official absentwithout good reason for 13 days. Whenshe arrived back, she erased a number ofthe absent marks so that there would notbe so many. However, she was found outby Mrs. N (head of section) who thenquestioned her. Ana answered truthfullyand admitted what she had done. “I washonest, and yet I was still punished,” sheexplained. Her classmates often did thesame thing, but would never admit it, sothat they escaped punishment.

As a result of Ana’s honesty, Mrs. Nrefused to sign or hand over her reportcard. In addition, she had to face a formaldisciplinary hearing, and the wrath of allof the staff members.

c. Returning late from schoolThe reason Ana frequently returned

late from school was because she likedhanging out at the mall, or would visit her


page

13

sister or uncle in Pontianak. The publictransportation minibus was also frequentlylate. She never asked permission if shewanted to visit her sibling’s or uncle’shouse. “Applying for permission is reallycomplicated. Anyway they’d never give it.”Permission would be refused on thegrounds that chores were scheduled forthe time in question, or for some otherreason, even though, in reality, nothing wasin fact scheduled.

Coming home from school “late”meant no later than 4 p.m. She wouldnever be out at night, except when shewas staying over in her relations’ houses.Ana said that some of the other girls oftencame home late at night. “See X, she staysover in her boyfriend’s house. She’s alwaysgetting into trouble. Her window’s open fromwhen she went out in the morning to night,so the staffs know.”

Coming home late from school is theoffence that Ana is most guilty of. “I don’tcount, but, yeah, two times a week. If I wereto count it, it’d be a lot over a month, not tomention a year. But I don’t count.” Ana couldnever learn her lesson about coming homelate. “It’s so boring being stuck inside all thetime, no sport. It’s just really boring. And it’sdifficult to get permission.”

If a child wanted permission to stay outlate, he or she would have to make out aletter requesting permission, which wouldhave to be signed by one of the seniorstaff and a childcare worker. “It’s up to themwhether to sign or not.” Ana found thisprocedure onerous, because if the seniorstaff said no, the childcare worker wouldalso say no. Even if the senior staff saidyes, there was no guarantee that thechildcare worker would also grantpermission.

d. Wrong InformationOne incident made the Head of the

institution, very angry. He had beeninformed that Ana had been recountingcritical stories about the institution to herteachers at school.

That evening, the Head called the dutychildcare worker in the institution, thepsychologist and the staff member incharge of the school fee payments (SPP).Ana was summoned by one of the Staffwho scolded her, saying she had been toldto do so by the Head.

“She said that what I had done wasunacceptable and that I should have kept mymouth shut,” Ana recalled. She protestedas she didn’t believe she was guilty ofdisparaging the childcare institution,particularly to her teachers at school. TheHead said he had been told what Ana hadsaid by a friend of his, who coincidentallywas a teacher at Ana’s school.

After being scolded by this staff, Anawas also summoned by a number of otherstaff, to explain herself.

The Head of the institution had heardthat Ana and her friend hadn’t paid theirschool fees for 4 months. As a result, hecalled the staff in charge and instructedhim to get to the bottom of the matter.So, Ana was summoned by the staff. Asthe person in charge of paying the schoolfees, he was upset by the fact that otherpeople might think he had embezzled themoney earmarked for the children’s schoolfees. When summoned by that memberof staff, Ana had been about to start herevening study but he was waiting for her.“(He) was clearly upset and emotional. Hesaid that the Head had said the school feeshadn’t been paid for 4 months. ‘Why did yousay that?’ He said he had already paid themoney, except for this month, and that wasbecause the money hadn’t come throughyet. He also said that if there was anyproblem, it shouldn’t go to the Head. “Whoreported it to the Head,” he demanded toknow. He accused Ana of running to theHead and warned her never to do so again.

The next day after returning to thechildcare institution from school, Ana wassummoned again by 3 other staff members.Ana was accused of spreading damagingstories about the type of food served for


page

14

the breaking-of-the-fast meal, and otheraspects of life in the institution. She wasscolded by all three adults. “I couldn’t acceptit as I felt I had nothing wrong,” said Ana.

The whole affair had embarrassed theHead of the institution, who couldn’tbelieve that children from the institutionwould spread such stories (“How couldchildren tell stories like that?”). Two dayslater, he summoned Ana and her friend.The Head said, “Don’t ever talk in public likethat again. It will be you yourselves who willsuffer if it ever gets into the newspapers. Thischildcare institution could be closed. If thisplace is closed, it will be you who will suffer,not us. We will continue to be paid.” Thiswas how the Head of the institutionsummed up the situation according to Ana.

And so that matter was closed. “Iwanted to explain, but (the Head) didn’t wantto hear.”

5. Punishmentsa. SummonsEvery violation of the rules results in

a summons. The child is first be spokento by the senior care staff and then by allthe others in turn. When summoned, thechild concerned would be subjected to ascolding and would be told whatimprovements were expected.

b. DeclarationWhenever a child was caught

committing a violation, he or she wouldbe required to make out a declarationstating that the offence would not berepeated. Such a declaration might readas follows:

“DeclarationI promise not to repeat this violation of

the rules. If I do repeat this violation, I amwilling to accept a harsher punishment thanthe one I received this time. I am also willingto accept expulsion from the childcareinstitution.”

“They must have a lot of them. I don’tknow where they keep them,” said Ana when

asked how many such declarations she hadsigned.

c. Ordered to run around theinstitution’s complex

This punishment had been imposedon Ana twice. The first time was onaccount of her relationship with herboyfriend. The second time was when she,along with all the other children, had beenordered to run around the childcareinstitution as a form of collectivepunishment for a number of offences thathad been committed by differentindividuals. Such collective punishmentmight be imposed, for example, in caseswhere individuals had neglected to dotheir chores, failed to go to bed on time,or were found in the opposite sex’sdormitory. “(The Head) said that if theywere punished separately, then they wouldonly get sympathy from their friends. So, itwas fairer if everyone was punished.” Eventhough all were punished, none of thechildren were angry: “If you want to getangry, get angry with your friends, he said.But who wants to get angry. If you get angrywith others, they’ll be angry back to you” saidAna.”

d. Cleaning RoomsThis sanction was also imposed on

Ana for violating the ban on havingboyfriends. “The rooms were all different,”Ana said, when describing what she hadbeen instructed to do.

She was ordered to clean the studyroom and hall. These rooms had to beswept, mopped and dusted. Ana had to dothis for three days after returning homefrom school.

e. Formal Disciplinary Hearing“I can’t remember how many times,”

said Ana when asked how many times thispunishment had been imposed on her.

The holding of a formal hearing wasdescribed by Ana as follows: All of thestaff would ask the child why he or shehad done what they did. Then, they wouldtake turns at scolding the child. No matter


page

15

what the child said, it wouldn’t be accepted.Not only the childcare institution staffwould be present at such a hearing, butalso the other staff from the complex sothat the entire office would know whatthe child had done.

“Sad, angry, afraid, ashamed, remorseful,”were the words used by Ana to describehow she would feel during such a formalhearing. “If I was called before a hearing, I’dbe too afraid to say anything, so that in theend everyone would presume I was guilty. Evenif you did have a good excuse, it wouldn’tmatter as they wouldn’t believe you. It wouldonly make them angrier.”

Being called before a hearing was theworst form of punishment for Ana. “If Iwas ordered to clean up, no problem. But beingcalled before a hearing ... ooohhh!” said Ana,while covering her face with her hands.

3. Daily activities in the childcare institutionThe schedule of daily activities in the

childcare institution was as follows:

At one stage it had been proposedto the Head of the institution that specialstaff who understood the subjects thechildren were studying at school beappointed to oversee evening study. But

nothing came of it. This suggestion hadbeen made directly to the Head wheneveryone was gathered in the dining room.

E. Ana’s hopes

If something comes to the attentionof the institution’s authorities, they shouldnot just take it as gospel without firstverifying it. They should listen first to whatthe child has to say and why he or she didwhat they did. The punishments imposedfor infringements of the rules shouldn’tbe too severe, especially punishments likebe ordered to run, crawl in the drain, andbeing subjected to collective punishmentby the other children (slapping, pinching).There was also no need for formalhearings to be attended by so many peopleas this only frightened the child so muchthat he or she would not be able to speak.

The childcare workers in theinstitution shouldn’t show favouritism.Normally, the Javanese side with otherJavanese.

F. Others’ comments about Ana

Ms. W (childcare staff): Ana is OK.There are others who are a lot worse thanshe is. Ana is still afraid of the staff, andalso she’s polite.

Time

05:00

05:00-06:00

06:00-14:00

14:00-18:00

18:00-18:30

18:30-21:00

22:00-05:00

Activities

Get up

Getting ready for school

School

Rest, talking with friends, doinghomework, watching TV

Supper

Study in the study room

Sleep

Description

Bathing, morning study if repeating tests

Watching TV in childcare worker’s house.“Watching TV in childcare worker’s isn’t nice,but there’s no other place”

Before entering the dining room, thechildren would line up first in front of thedining room and repeat the students’ oath

“I can ask Mr. W or Ms. W for help if there’ssomething that’s really hard or I don’tunderstand”


page

16

Mrs R (staff): In reality, she’s a quiet,withdrawn child. As far as causing troublegoes, she’s just normal. The only problemwas that there was a case of misleadinginformation recently. (The Head) receiveda text message saying that Ana hadn’t paidher school fees for 4 months, and that shewas fond of talking about what went onin the childcare institution to outsiders.

She also said that children in the institutionweren’t given breaking-of-the-fast meals.

T (a child in the institution): She’s nice.She isn’t stuck-up, and she doesn’t makedistinctions between people. She oftenbreaks the rules.

*) The text of all the Life Stories has been kept as near aspossible to the original narrative given by the children so asto ensure maximum authenticity.

“Someone That Matters” | III. Social welfare and childcare institutions in Indonesia

page

17

A. Residential Care in Indonesia today: numbers and trends

In its 2004 Manual on the Standardization of Social Institutions, the Ministry of Social Affairsrecognises 15 types of institutions that provide social assistance including 6 that are specificallytargeted at children. The other 8 types of institutions provide services for both children andadults while only one is specific to adults, the institution for the elderly. The Manual recognisesinstitutions for children who have retarded development, institutions for the care of ‘neglectedchildren’, institutions for ‘naughty children’, institutions for the guidance of teenagers who havedropped out of school, institutions for children who are substance abusers and institutions forthe day care of children whose parents are working. Only one of those institutions for childrenis non-residential (the day care centres for children of parents who work). Institutions that carefor both children and adults do this on the basis of their social or personal situation such as beingdisabled, or being a beggar, being homeless, working as a prostitute or having a mental illness.

III. Social welfare and childcareinstitutions in Indonesia


page

18

In addition, the Ministry of Social Affairshas developed in recent years three new typesof institutions to provide care and services forchildren: the Street Children Shelters (RumahSinggah) developed in the aftermath of theeconomic crisis of the late 1990s, the SpecialProtection Homes for Child victims of Traffickingor other Abuse (Rumah Perlindungan Sosial Anak)developed in 2004, and finally the SocialDevelopment Centres for Street Childrendeveloped in 2006. Despite the extended rangeof institutions for children identified by theGovernment under the Social Welfare system,the reality is that the great majority of suchinstitutions in Indonesia come under the‘neglected children’/ ‘orphanage’ format and arerun and owned by private organisations.

Prior to the decentralisation ofgovernment in 1999, DEPSOS owned and ran66 institutions that focused on providingassistance to children1. Out of these 18 werechildcare institutions (PSAA). After decentral-isation, 16 of these institutions were handedover to the local government and DEPSOSretained control and ownership of only 2childcare institutions, one in Central Java (Pati)and one in Jambi in Sumatera Island. In 2006 ittook over responsibility for one more childcareinstitution from the local government in Acehin the post Tsunami context, bringing the totalnumber of childcare institutions run andmanaged by the Ministry to 3. The actualnumber of childcare institutions that arepresently owned and managed by localgovernment at provincial or district level isunknown because of the lack of data keptacross government structures. A recent surveycarried out by DEPSOS with Save theChildren’s help has so far identified 17 localgovernment childcare institutions across 16provinces. If that average is confirmed acrossthe other 17 provinces it would mean thatthere is likely to be a total of 35 childcareinstitutions run by government agencies acrossIndonesia. That would mean less than 0.5% ofthe total number of childcare institutions if the7000 estimate is correct. No accurate data,however, is available about the number ofchildcare institutions run by privateorganisations and foundations because there

is no centralised licensing, registration ormonitoring system in place. The centralGovernment only keeps data on thoseinstitutions it runs and some basic data onthose for whom it provides financial assistance.

While it runs only a few institutions,DEPSOS provides financial support to asubstantive number of social care institutions,including the childcare institutions, through theGovernment Subsidy Program for Additional FoodCosts for Social Care Institutions started in 2001.This Program is part of the governmentcompensation for the rise in the price of Fuel(BBM) and aims to support the continuationof social assistance through the childcareinstitutions. This assistance is only provided tosubsidise the cost of food for those being caredfor in the institutions, whether government orprivate ones.2 This aid is disbursed throughthe Post Office system.

During 2007 this program reached across33 Provinces and 395 Districts andMunicipalities. The total number of Social CareInstitutions that were reached throughoutIndonesia was 5053 including childcareinstitutions, institutions for the Disabled,institutions for the Elderly and Shelters forHomeless people.

The total number of childcareinstitutions that received this assistancein 2007 is 4,305 with subsidy providedfor 128,016 children in their care. Thisamounted to more than IDR 105.2 billion (US$11.69 million) being disbursed to the childcareinstitutions by the central Government. TheFood Assistance given per child per dayamounts to IDR 2.300 (US$ 0.26) for a periodof 365 days or IDR 839.500 per child per year(US$ 93.28) but not all institutions receivedthe assistance for the full year.

The data collected through the BBMsubsidy is presently the only source ofinformation on childcare institutions acrossIndonesia, although it is itself very limited. Interms of the ‘Neglected Childcare Institutions’,the data available through the BBM subsidyindicates that the number of childcareinstitutions receiving that assistance hasincreased steadily each year since 2003 (2865


page

19

childcare institutions received the BBMassistance in 2003). There was, however, asignificant increase of 513 childcare institutionsthat received assistance from 2003 to 2004and between 2006 and 2007 an additional 632childcare institutions received the subsidy.While the number of childcare institutionsreceiving assistance is growing, the number ofactual children it is meant to cover hasremained fairly stable throughout those yearspointing to the fact that the assistance is likelyto be contributing a smaller proportion ofneeded funds for each recipient institutionevery year.

The BBM assistance does not actuallycover the total number of institutions in a givenprovince or the actual number of children beingcared for in those institutions. Instead it coversa fixed number of both, calculated to extendthe available assistance across sufficientnumbers of the institutions. Generally the setnumber of children in receipt of the BBMsubsidy revolves around 30 to 40 children perinstitution. The subsidy is also rotated betweeninstitutions in each province every year as theBBM fund would not be sufficient to cover allthe institutions in most Provinces. Thepercentage of institutions reached as a resultvaries from province to province makingestimating the number of childcare institutionsand the number of children in those institutionson the basis of the BBM subsidy extremelydifficult. A great number of factors also seemto come into play in terms how much BBMassistance each province will be able to accessincluding the available total financial assistanceavailable, the number of institutions and thelocal Government’s skills in advocating for theirparticular situation.

As no census of childcare institutions hasever been undertaken except in Aceh Province,it is difficult to estimate how many institutionsper province are actually getting the BBM. Insome of the Provinces where the number ofchildcare institutions was found to be very highsuch as Central Java, the local Department ofSocial Services estimated that the BMMreached no more than 50% of the childcareinstitutions. In Aceh where the census was

carried out and the BBM subsidy was well‘socialised’, it was found to have reached 82%of these institutions. 3 If we take these figuresas ball park figures, we can estimate that therecould be anything from 5250 to over 8610childcare institutions across Indonesia.

Rough figures for the number of childrenin those institutions are much more difficultto draw from the BBM data bearing in mindthe real differences in terms of number ofchildren per institution across the provinces.The average number of children receiving theBBM subsidy across all Provinces under the2007 data was 30 children per institution. InNAD Province, the only Province were acensus of the childcare institutions was actuallycarried out, it was found that in 2006 the BBMcovered fewer than 60% of the children whowere actually in those institutions. 4

We have no way of knowing howrepresentative the data in Aceh is in that regardbut if we assume that the number of childrencovered by the BBM subsidy is anythingbetween 50 to 70%, that would mean underthe 2007 data that there is between 43 to 60children per institution. On this basis we canestimate that there is anything from 225,750to 315,000 children if the actual number ofinstitutions is in the lower range of 5250 orup to 370,230 to 516,600 children if thenumber of institutions is as high as 8610. Theseare very rough figures of course, which mostlyserve to highlight the problem faced by nothaving an effective data collection system. Yetthese figures do give us some sense of scale inrelation to the situation of children in childcareinstitutions across Indonesia.

Despite its clear limitations, the BBM dataalso provides some idea of the distribution ofchildcare institutions across the country andas such highlights some real differences in termsof the number and density of childcareinstitutions in each province. The island of Javaholds the 3 provinces that have the highestnumbers of childcare institutions. East Java topsthe list with 794 childcare institutions in receiptof the BBM subsidy in 2007 followed closelyby West Java at 652 and Central Java at 380childcare institutions.


page

20

Compared to those figures, the Provincethat has the highest number of childcareinstitutions outside of Java according to the2007 BBM data is South Sulawesi with 268institutions and West Nusa Tenggara (NTB)with 211. At the bottom end of the scale is

Bengkulu with 14, Maluku with 20 andGorontalo with 21.

If we compare those figures withpopulation data for each Province5, however adifferent picture emerges as can be seen fromthe Table below,

Number ofPSAA per100,000people

ProvincePopulation

according to2000 Census

(BPS)

Number ofPSAA underBBM 2007

Number ofpeople per

PSAA

Table 1. Average Number of childcare institutions according to BBM figures per 100.000population per province.

Nanggroe Aceh D. 3,930,905 187 21,021 4.8North Sumatera 11,649,655 90 129,441 0.8West Sumatera 4,248,931 93 45,687 2.2R i a u 4,957,627 63 78,692 1.3J a m b i 2,413,846 55 43,888 2.3South Sumatera 6,899,675 100 68,997 1.4B e n g k u l u 1,567,432 14 111,959 0.9L a m p u n g 6,741,439 149 45,245 2.2Bangka Belitung 900,197 23 39,139 2.6DKI Jakarta 8,389,443 87 96,430 1.0West Java 35,729,537 652 54,800 1.8Central Java 31,228,940 380 82,181 1.2DI Yogyakarta 3,122,268 55 56,769 1.8East Java 34,783,640 794 43,808 2.3Banten 8,098,780 169 47,922 2.1B a l i 3,151,162 50 63,023 1.6West Nusa Tenggara (NTB) 4,009,261 211 19,001 5.3East Nusa Tenggara (NTT) 3,952,279 102 38,748 2.6West Kalimantan 4,034,198 95 42,465 2.4Central Kalimantan 1,857,000 38 48,868 2.0South Kalimantan 2,985,240 67 44,556 2.2East Kalimantan 2,455,120 96 25,574 3.9North Sulawesi 2,012,098 43 46,793 2.1Central Sulawesi 2,218,435 98 22,637 4.4South Sulawesi 8,059,627 268 30,073 3.3Southeast Sulawesi 1,821,284 59 30,869 3.2Gorontalo 835,044 21 39,764 2.5M a l u k u 1,205,539 20 60,277 1.7North Maluku 785,059 24 32,711 3.1Papua 2,220,934 78 28,474 3.5INDONESIA 206,264,595 4,305 47,913 2.1


page

21

NTB has the highest density of childcareinstitutions per population than any otherprovinces in Indonesia with a ratio of 5.3institutions per 100,000 people. It is followedclosely by Aceh (NAD) with 4.8 and CentralSulawesi at 4.4 and East Kalimantan at 3.9.

At the other hand of the scale, NorthSumatera only has 0.8 childcare institutions per100,000 people while Bengkulu has 0.9 while,surprisingly, DKI Jakarta comes next with 1institution per 100,000. These figures, though,can only provide some idea of the distributionof childcare institutions across the country. Aswe have seen above, the percentage of actualinstitutions reached under the BBM subsidymay actually vary widely across Provinces. Onthe other it does give us some idea of the widedifferences that can be found across Indonesiain relation to the density of childcareinstitutions.

In that regard, out of the 6 provincesselected under this research, NTB and Acehwere the top two provinces in terms of numberof childcare institutions per population. WestKalimantan and North Sulawesi were near thenational average, while Maluku and Central Javahad relatively lower numbers of institutions perpopulation.

The lack of accurate data also makes itdifficult to understand the trends in terms ofincrease or decrease in the number of childrenbeing placed in residential care as well asfluctuations in the numbers of theseinstitutions. The BBM data seems to indicate asignificant rise in the number of suchinstitutions every year but this could be theresult of an increase in the number ofinstitutions actually being reached by thesubsidy (as well as the number of institutionsseeking to register to access the assistance)rather than new institutions being established.More reliable data is available in Aceh provinceas a result of the Rapid Survey conducted therein 2006 by DEPSOS and Save the Children. Theresearch found clear evidence of a marked risein the number of childcare institutions fromthe 1980’s onward with “91.84% of Children’sHomes having been established after 1980. Inaddition, a staggering 43.88% of all Children’s

Homes in NAD were established after 2000.”6

Without similar data from other provinces, itis impossible to know whether this dramaticshift towards the use of residential care forchildren also took place across Indonesia andwithin the same time scale or period. Intriguingdata, though, submitted by the IndonesiaGovernment in its report to the Committeeon the Rights of the Child in 2003 refers todata from 1997-1998 pointing to the existenceof 1647 ‘orphanages’ caring for 91,051children.7 The same report goes on to pointout that “The table indicates fairly rapid growthin the number of alternative care/alternativeplacement facilities, which almost doubled between1990/1991 and 1997/1998.”

Should this data be accurate it would meanthat the number of childcare institutions inIndonesia has again more than doubled withinthe last ten years. This would be the case evenif we were to refer only to the number ofinstitutions that are known to receive the BBMsubsidy. If the higher estimates are correct onthe other hand, this would mean that thenumber of childcare institutions has more thanquadrupled within a ten year period.8

Despite the lack of proper data onchildcare institutions, the one thing that is clearis that the overwhelming majority of them areprivately run and owned. From the figuresabove we can estimate that the governmentonly owns and runs about 0.7 to 0.4% of thetotal number of childcare institutions in thecountry. In addition there is anything from 19%to 50% of childcare institutions in the countrythat are provided with no support by thegovernment authorities. In fact theirwhereabouts, situation or the services theyprovide are not known by the Government.This means that there are vast numbers ofchildcare institutions and children in residentialcare who remain completely outside ofgovernment supervision, regulation or support.Even in the case of the childcare institutionsthat do get some support through the BBMscheme, that support is purely financial anddoes not entail any monitoring of the servicesprovided but only an auditing of the moneyspent for food costs under that scheme. Theauditing process itself only covers a small


page

22

percentage of the institutions that receive theBBM subsidy.

There is also no doubt that most of theprivate organisations running childcareinstitutions in Indonesia are faith based but asa result of the lack of data, it is not possible todetermine what percentage of childcareinstitutions are established and run by faithbased organisation and what percentage arerun by organisations using other socio-culturalframe of reference. The vast majority seem tobe run as independent initiatives by localreligious or community members althoughsignificant numbers are also linked to nationallevel religious organisations. Nahdatul Ulama(NU) for example has 103 childcare institutionsunder its network while Muhammadiyah has338 childcare institutions.9 Hidayatullah hasaround 246 branches and most of these runchildcare institutions but not all.

With around 87% of Indonesian citizensbeing Muslims, it is highly likely that the greatmajority of these institutions are being run byMuslim organisations but there are alsosignificant numbers of institutions being runby organisations following other faiths includingChristian, Hindu and Buddhist. The fact that achildcare institution is run by a particular faithgroup does not mean that the services itprovides or the approach taken are necessarilythe same as we will see from this research. Inaddition, childcare institutions that are not runby a faith organisation, including governmentrun ones, often use religion as a key approachto their services. As a result, without properdata it is impossible to provide any real senseof the breakdown of childcare institutions inrelation to religion.

The lack of data also means that no propergender analysis can be provided in terms ofthe children cared for in these institutionsincluding whether more boys than girls actuallyenter institutional care or vice versa. TheSurvey that is being carried by DEPSOS withSave the Children’s help, while not yetcomplete, seems to indicate that more boysthan girls enter institutional care with 57% ofboys compared with 43% of girls in thechildcare institutions from the 16 provinceswho have responded so far. This seems to

confirm what was found in the context of Acehprovince, the only province where a census ofchildcare institutions was ever undertaken. Amajority of boys were found in theseinstitutions with boys constituting over 59%of the total population of children ininstitutions while girls made up 41%. Amongthe tsunami affected children placed in thoseinstitutions, there were also more boys with57% of boys and 43% of girls. Why more boysare being placed in institutional care raisessome important questions that need to beanswered if the different issues facing boys andgirls in terms of their care and protection areto be responded to properly.

It is clear that residential care institutionsin Indonesia are seen to play a huge role in theprovision of social services for children andfamilies deemed in ‘need’. This role seems tohave significantly increased in the last coupleof decades. It is however also important tonote that while the numbers of children ininstitutions in Indonesia are alarmingly high, thegreat majority of children who have lostprimary carers or whose parents are unableto care for them, for whatever reason, are beingcared for by their extended families and in theircommunities in Indonesia.

Data on children under 15 years of ageextracted from a national population surveycarried out in 2000 to complement the 2000National Census and covering all Provinces atthe time except Aceh and Maluku shows thatthere were 60 million children under 15 yearsin Indonesia living in households within theircommunities.10 Of those, over 3.4 million wereliving with their mother but not with theirfather; just over 1 million were living with theirfather but not their mother and over 2.15million children were not living with eitherparent. Interestingly the data shows that 72.5%of the children not living with their parentsstill had both parents alive, only 10.1% had lostboth parents11 (217,582 children) and 15.5%had lost one parent (330,805 children). Thesituation or whereabouts of the parents forthe remaining 1.9% of children was not known.

It is clear from this data that significantnumbers of children under 15 years of age inIndonesia are being cared for by families that


page

23

do not include their own parents. The surveydata also shows that 58.6% of these childrenwere living with their grandparents while 29.3%were living with other relatives. These figuresclearly indicate that kinship care in Indonesiaremains the primary response for childrenwhose parents have died with 88% of childrennot living with their parents being cared for bytheir extended family.

The fact that over 6.5 million childrenunder 15 are either living in single parentfamilies or within extended families reflect thestrong recognition in Indonesia of the role andresponsibility of families, including the extendedfamily for the care of children. At the sametime, the growing reliance on residential careraises some important questions aboutwhether that role may be shifting and if so why.It also opens up the question about what isbeing done to support children who have lostone or both biological parent and whether thatapproach is in the best interest of thesechildren and their right to care and protection.The key challenge for the government now atnational and local level is to understand thosetrends and identify what this means for thecare and protection of children in Indonesiatoday.

B. The policy context: the role ofchildcare institutions.

The recognition that the State has aresponsibility to step in where for any reasona family is unable to care for their childrenwas established firmly as far back as the 1945Constitution of Indonesia. Article 34(1) of theConstitution states that “the indigent andabandoned children shall be cared for by theState”. The establishment of residentialinstitutions for orphans and neglected childrenpre-dates the Constitution, however, and it isthought that the more formal concept of Statecontrolled child care institutions in Indonesiadeveloped during the colonial period.12

The concept of child care in Indonesia isfirmly rooted in a welfare approach thatrequires the State and the community to stepin to protect and care for ‘neglected orabandoned’ children or children ‘withproblems’, usually through the provision ofinstitutional based care services.13 This focuson the provision of social welfare throughresidential institutions, Panti Sosial, is also truefor other forms of social interventions for‘people with social problems’ (PenyandangMasalah Kesejahteraan Sosial- PMKS) such aspeople with disabilities, those suffering fromsubstance abuse, women deemed ‘destitute’ orinvolved in prostitution, the homeless, thebeggars and the elderly among others.14 Withinthat framework, ‘children with problems’ werealso identified as a particular target of socialwelfare services as articulated in GovernmentRegulation No 2 (1988) on Improving the welfareof Children with Problems.15

The term ‘neglected children’ has beenused in that context to refer to any child whoseparents ‘for one reason or another, areincapable of providing for the child’s needs’, asa result of which the child suffers neglect orabandonment16. As such the approach seemsmostly non-judgmental and merely seeks toremedy the impact of socio-economic factorson the capacity of parents and families to carefor their children. Yet in practice, thesecategories have been further defined to includecertain categories of children and familiesidentified according to set norms and


page

24

assumptions. The Ministry of Social Serviceshas traditionally included in this category notonly orphans, fatherless and motherlesschildren, but also children who aredisadvantaged (literally who “do not have thecapacity” - tidak/kurang mampu) whether as aresult of economic or social reasons.17 Othercategories formally identified under thecategory of “neglected children” have been‘children left without fathers, children left withoutmothers, […] children who drop out of school,children from disadvantaged families, child victimsof natural disasters, child victims of conflict/civildisorder, etc...’ and children whose ‘parents areseparated or divorced.’18

The 1979 Child Welfare law clearlyarticulated that the primary responsibility forthe fulfilment of a child’s physical, psychologicaland social wellbeing was with the child’sparents. At the same time it also providedthat children who do not have parents have‘the right to be cared for by the State or otherbody’, while children who are ‘disadvantaged’have the right to access ‘assistance in order toensure that they are able to grow and developreasonably in their family environment.’19 Whileit did not specifically assert a child’s right togrow up in his/her family, the requirement ofassistance to ‘disadvantaged’ children throughtheir families constitute an importantprioritization of family based care.

Following ratification of the UNConvention on the Rights of the Child (CRC)in 1990, Indonesia adopted a new law on ChildProtection, Law No 23 (2002), which soughtto integrate the CRC into national legislation.It defined a “Neglected/Abandoned Child” asa child “whose reasonable needs, whetherphysical, mental, spiritual or social, are notfulfilled”, thus making the definition more childfocused rather than parent focused but leavingopen the question of who is responsible forfulfilling those needs and what they are.20

This law for the first time broughtconcepts of child protection and child careunder a child rights framework instead of apure social welfare one. In particular, Article 7and Article 14 recognised that a child has theright to know and be brought up by his or her

parents and that separation should only berequired where that is in the best interest ofthe child and as a last resort.

It also restated the principle that “shouldfor any reason his/her natural parents not beable to guarantee the child’s growth anddevelopment, or the child has been neglectedand/or abandoned, then the said child may befostered or adopted as a foster or adoptedchild by other person in accordance with theprovisions of the laws and regulations in effect(Article 7(2) of Law No 23 (2002)). As such itbrought together a framework for alternativecare that includes fostering, guardianship,adoption as well as residential care.

Following the adoption of this law,DEPSOS updated its guidelines and providedsets of directives for the care of children ininstitutions and the care of children ‘outsideof institutions’.21 While the concepts clearlyevolved to recognise the importance of familybased care, the emphasis remained firmly onthe provision of care services for childreneither in or through the childcare institutions.

The aim of the Panti Sosial Asuhan Anak(Social Institution for the Care of Children orChildcare Institution) was originally to act asalternative “parent”.22 At the same time socialwelfare concepts developed in the Ministry ofSocial Services increasingly saw theseinstitutions as playing a broader role, becomingfocal points for the delivery of services forchildren and their families at the communitylevel. The 2002 DEPSOS GeneralGuidelines for the Operation ofChildcare Institutions and the 2004DEPSOS Guidelines for the Provision ofChild Care in Institutions identify a rangeof key functions for care institutions:

“A childcare institution provides children’swelfare services based on a social work approach.23

Accordingly, the functions of a childcare institutionmay be enumerated as follows:

1. Serving as an institution that provides welfareservices to children.

A childcare institution provides the servicesthat would otherwise be provided by the child’sparents.


page

25

2. Serving as a source for information, data andconsultation on children’s welfare.

A childcare institution provides informationand data that is required by third parties,particularly as regards the rights of children,their needs, available alternatives for resolvingtheir problems, the resource systems normallyemployed and their potential, the servicesmodels used, etc. These institutions can serveas vehicles for accessing and supplying theresources that are required by all partiesinvolved. Accordingly, they also function asconsultative institutions, that is, by providingconsultation services to those who requirethem. A number of issues require attention inthis regard, including the following:

a. a comprehensive children’s welfareinformation system and social mappingwill be required;

b. the dissemination of information aboutchildcare institutions through promotions,publications and campaigns should beundertaken. In order to do this, outreachtechniques will need to be mastered;

c. special units need to be established tohandle information, data and accessunder the supervision of social workers;

d. research and studies need to beundertaken so as to develop appropriateservice models that are in line with thechanges taking place in society.

3. Serving as referral institutions

Childcare institutions serve as referralinstitutions for families, the community, thestate and other parties. Such referrals arenot solely confined to services, but also involvethe referral of children to other institutions inparticular cases. In their capacity as referralinstitutions, each childcare institution needsto apply standard regulations regardingrecruitment and referral patterns. Accordingly,each childcare institution needs to be fullyfamiliar with the resource systems that willbe employed as part of its collaborativenetwork in making referrals.24

4. Serving as agencies through which the publicmay become involved in providing welfare

services to children. Childcare institutionsprovide an opportunity to the public to play arole in helping improve the welfare of children.The public need to be encouraged to providesupport for and to become involved in theprocess of providing services to children. Inorder to realize this, the following mattersrequire attention:

a. Childcare institutions need to be open tothe public, particularly in the context ofseeking support from the community.25

b. The community needs to be fully involvedin the var ious ser vice programsundertaken by childcare institutions.

c. Childcare institutions should becomeinvolved in the efforts to resolve socialproblems in the community, especiallywhere these concern the welfare ofchildren.26

This emphasis on the provision of socialservices to children through residential care isalso reflected in the GovernmentGuidelines for the Provision of Servicesto Neglected children outside ofinstitutional care (2004). While the focus isprimarily non residential as the title indicates,the delivery of the services continues to relyprimarily on the availability of residential careinstitutions. The Guidelines state that “theprovision of welfare services to neglected/abandoned children in non institutional settings”shall mean a system of welfare service provisionthrough an outreach approach by childcareinstitutions and in the community for the purposeof providing protection, counselling and guidanceto children as regards their physical, mental, andsocial well-being so that such children can live,properly grow and develop and fully participate insociety.”27 This ‘outreach’ approach wherebychildcare institutions provide, in addition toresidential care services, support to somechildren within their families is a step forwardtowards supporting family based care but thereare some real practical challenges to itsrealisation as this report will show.

In addition, both sets of guidelines see asthe targets for such services a broad categoryof ‘neglected/abandoned children’ that includes


page

26

orphans and other ‘disadvantaged children’without emphasizing the primary responsibilityof parents or the need to ensure that anapproach that seeks to reinforce family basedcare and prevent separation is prioritised. Infact the parental role is understood solely inthe context of the parents’ socio-economiccapacity to provide what are deemed the ‘basicneeds’ of children. The role of parents isdefined as fulfilling the following needs of theirchildren:

‘a. Provision of/assistance with accom-modation, food, and clothing;

b. Provision of assistance for children’seducation, including, for example ,scholarships, bicycles, and schoolrequisites;

c. Provision of assistance with healthcare,including medication, medical treatment,and nursing care;

d. Provision of vocational and other skillstraining;

e. Facilitating socialization of a recreational/educational nature in the community;

f. Provision of mental/spiritual services.’28

Little if any reference is made to the criticalrole of parents and families in providing childrenwith the fundamental relationships enabling thedevelopment of attachment, love and theemotional security and attention that is knownto be crucial to child development. Nor is anyreference made to the role of the family asthe key enabling environment for children’ssocialisation. While it is recognised briefly thatIndonesian law including Law No 4 onChildren’s Welfare ‘provide that a child’s familyis the institution that has the first and primaryresponsibility to ensure his physical, psychologicaland social wellbeing. The problem is that not allparents are capable of ensuring that their children’srights are fulfilled.’

Bearing in mind the emphasis on thecapacity of families to access basic services fortheir children and the percentage of Indonesianwho continue to live below the poverty lineand do not get to access to these services, it isnot surprising that huge numbers of children

can thus be categorised as being ‘neglected orabandoned’ and their families as having ‘failed’to provide those basic needs.

In the introduction to the Guidelines onthe provision of social services to children ininstitutions, a figure of almost 3 millionneglected or abandoned children of 6 to 18years of age is provided for 1998 and a further10 million children are considered at risk ofneglect or abandonment. The lack of aneffective system for data collection on childprotection cases at all levels in Indonesia andthe absence of a system to assess or let alonemeasure parental capacity to care indicate thatbroader social and economic factors have beenused to measure the level of neglect andabandonment.

This broad based data is then used tojustify the need for residential care institutionsfor children in Indonesia. “Given these sort ofsocial situations, it is no longer feasible to rely onfamilies to deal with the problems of neglected/abandoned children. Instead, institutions arerequired that are capable of substituting forchildren’s parents. This is why childcare institutionshave been developed as institutions that arecapable of providing professional services tochildren.”29 By equating low economic and socialstatus with lack of capacity to care and placingresidential care as the solution to parents’inability to access basic services, the Guidelinesactually move away from the Child ProtectionLaw’s recognition of the importance of parentalcare and responsibility. This illustrates the factthat despite the adoption of the ChildProtection law and its emphasis on the rightof the child to grow and develop within his orher family and not to be separated from themunless clearly in their best interest, socialwelfare interventions towards childrencontinue to place residential care as theprimary option to ensure children’s access tobasic services rather than the last resort thatit is required to be under Indonesian andinternational standards. Thus, while thetheoretical framework has moved on, thepractical implication of this new approach hasnot yet been reflected in the way Social WelfareAgencies understand their roles in theprotection of children. These agencies still view


page

27

the role of the State as replacing parents ratherthan supporting parents and families in theircrucial responsibility towards their children.They also continue to equate the crucial roleof parents and extended families as primarilymeeting basic needs rather than also enablingchildren’s rights to grow, live and develop fullyas social and emotional individuals.

It is interesting to note that the onecategory of children which is not referred toat all in those Guidelines as potentially beingin need of alternative care are children whoface abuse, violence and deliberate neglect fromtheir families. This is the case despite the factthat the Child Protection Law moves away fromthe ‘children with problems’ conceptualframework and introduces the concept ofchildren in need of ‘special protection’ whichplaces ‘neglected/ abandoned children’ togetherwith abused, exploited children as well aschildren facing emergency situations under abroader group of children ‘at risk’.30 In fact, forthe first time this law recognises the right ofevery child to protection against ‘harshtreatment, violence and abuse’ , ‘neglect’ ,‘exploitation of an economic or sexual nature’,‘injustice’, ‘discrimination’, and ‘other forms ofmistreatment’ by his or her ‘parents/guardiansor other persons who are responsible for his/hercare’.31

This is an important indication that theGuidelines fail to see the parental role as morethan providing for what it understands as the‘basic needs’ of children. The concept of‘neglect’ used to determine that families areunable or unwilling to care for their children

in the Government Guidelines does not seekto address or assess that fundamental role ofparents but rather only the capacity and abilityof those parents to access basic services fortheir children. In that sense, institutions areseen not really as care institutions but ratheras a medium to address what is deemed to bethe impact of poverty on families.

The Child Protection law, on the otherhand, not only recognises the primacy of theparental role, it also sees that role as muchbroader than simply providing for the basicneeds of children. It refers not only to parentsand families’ responsibility for ‘caring for,maintaining, education and protecting children’ butalso to their responsibility in ‘ensuring the growthand development of the child in accordance withhis capabilities, talents and interests’.32 At the sametime, it also requires the Government to ‘ensurethe maintenance and upkeep of neglected and/orabandoned children, whether in the context of aninstitution or outside an institution.’ 33 The law alsorefers to the need for a legal decision both fora finding that a child is neglected or abandonedas well as for the revocation or modificationof parental rights. Thus an institution, familymembers or ‘an authorized officer’ can file anapplication for a court order ‘declaring a childto be neglected’ and identifying ‘where the childis to be accommodated and maintained’ or for arevocation of parental rights and theidentification of who is to ‘act as guardian forthe child’.34 This implies that a legal decision isrequired by those who seek to obtainresponsibility for the care of the child on theground that the child is neglected as a result


page

28

of a ‘failure of his/her parents to exercise theirresponsibility for some reason’ or because his/her parent neglected ‘their obligations’. 35 Whatis left problematically unclear in the law iswhether such orders are required in all casesor only where there are no parents or theparents are not consenting to the transfer ofparental responsibility for the child.

The Government Guidelines for the careof children in or out of institutions, on theother hand, do not refer at all to any type oflegal process or requirement for thedetermination that a child is indeed in need ofalternative care nor for providing a legal basisfor the placement of a child in alternative careincluding in an institution.

There are a number of important factorsthat can be seen to have played a significantrole in shaping the way social welfare forchildren has been understood and deliveredin Indonesia and which must be considered ifwe are to understand how residential carebecame the primary means of socialintervention for children deemed ‘withproblems’ or in need of protection in Indonesia.

C. Childcare institutions as socialservices

Financing social services through institutions?

Without accurate data it is simply notpossible to fully understand the trendsregarding the establishment of childcareinstitutions and as such it is also difficult toidentify what may be triggering an expansionin the use of residential care in Indonesia. Oneaspect though that cannot be ignored and thatwas clearly evidenced in the post tsunamicontext in Aceh is the significant impact offunding, particularly regular funding such as thegovernment BBM scheme36. Financial assistanceschemes directed to institutions and providedper child is certain to be an incentive to‘recruit’’ children to childcare facilities whetherin their best interest or not. At the same timeif direct support services to families are notprovided and prioritised there is a real riskthat the capacity of families to care and copeat times of crisis will be severely undermined.

Without access to both social protectionschemes such as safety nets and cash transfersand psycho-social support including throughsocial services, families may see no otheralternative at times of personal and social crisesthan to place their children in an institution inorder to access assistance. By channelling suchassistance through the child care institutions,the government and communities themselvesmay actually be fuelling a situation whereresidential care is seen as the best optionrather than the last resort it should be.

Ministry of Social Affairs is composed ofthree main Directorate Generals under whicha number of Directorates sit37:

1. Social Empowerment (Family Empower-ment; Empowerment of Social Com-mnunity Institution; Empowerment ofIsolated Cultural Communities;Impoverished People Empowerment; andVeterans Affairs, Pioneers, and SocialSolidarity)

2. Social Services and Rehabilitation (SocialServices for Children, Social Services forElderly, Social Services and Rehabilitationfor the Disabled Persons, and SocialServices and Rehabilitation for SociallyTroubled People).

3. Social Assistance and Security (SocialAssitance for Natural Disaster Victims,Social Assistance for Social DisasterVictims, Social Assistance for ViolenceVictims and Migrant Workers, Collectingand Managing Social Fund Resources, andSocial welfare Security)

The total budget for the Ministry of SocialAffairs for 2006 amounted to 251 Million USD.Out of this budget the four followingDirectories were given the biggest share ofthe budget:

- Directorate for the Impoverished PeopleEmpowerment: USD 52 million

- Directorate for the Social Assistance forSocial Disaster Victims: USD 42 million

- Directorate for the Social Assitance forNatural Disaster Victims: USD 20 million


page

29

- Directorate for the Social Services forChildren: USD 19 million

In addition, the Directorate for the FamilyEmpowerment came 9th in terms of its shareof the Ministry of Social Affairs budget and got5 million USD. The prioritisation for theMinistry in terms of its role in providing socialassistance was clearly focused on the poor andthose victims of what are called social disasterssuch as inter-communal conflicts, politicalunrests etc.

Out of the USD 19 million budget for theDirectorate for the Social Assistance toChildren, 1.3 million was allocated to therunning of the Directorate and its sub-directorates while 17.6 million went to localgovernment as the Deconcentration Fund(DEKON) to be spent by the provincialgovernment on social services. This Fund ishanded over annually by the CentralGovernment to the Provincial Government toprovide social services for groups of pre-determined vulnerable children includingneglected children, street children, disabledchildren and ‘naughty children’. DEPSOSprovides guidance on the way the fund is tobe distributed or used such as training, smallbusiness enterprises, scholarships, subsidy forsocial institutions, socialisation of relevant lawsetc. The Provincial Government then decideshow to distribute the Dekon throughout theDistricts through predetermined programmesrather than a generic fund to the Districtauthority.

In 2006 out of the USD 17.6 millionallocated by the Directorate to the provincesthrough the Dekon, 9 million were identifiedas being for ‘neglected children’. If we comparethis to the 11.7 million given directly to thechildcare institutions by the centralGovernment in 2007 (about USD 10.5 millionin 2006), we can see that the level of assistancegiven to these children through the childcareinstitutions is even higher than that given tothe local Government through the Dekon. Inaddition, it is important to note that a significantshare of the Deconcentration Fund is in turnallocated by each of the provincial authoritiesto the childcare institutions within their

territory although no data is available toidentify how much of that budget goes intoinstitutional care.

It is clear that financial assistance plays asignificant role in the growing number ofchildcare institutions across Indonesia. Accessto the BBM subsidy for the childcareinstitutions has been promoted and socialisedacross Indonesia both by the centralGovernment and local government as a keyform of assistance to organisations providingservices for children. In 2006 it has beenrenamed by DEPSOS as the Subsidy for theAdditional Costs of Fulfilling Basic Needs.Increasing numbers of organisations have beenseeking funds to establish or expand theirchildcare institutions. At a recent meeting in2006 to socialise the subsidy to the childcareinstitutions in Central Java, the provincialDINSOS authority found that instead of the300 or so institutions they expected to attend,over 600 attended to register to receive thesubsidy. Staff from DINSOS Central Javarecognised that they simply did not have asystem in place nor the capacity to check allof these institutions to verify that they aregenuine, or indeed childcare institutions, letalone to look at the services they are intendingto provide. In Buru Island, Maluku, of the sixchildcare institutions established there, theresearch found that at least two werepesantren (Islamic boarding schools) that hadnot established a childcare institution orprovided any services beyond what theynormally provided. The heads of thesepesantren explained though that they hadregistered as childcare institutions under theadvice of the local social authorities so thatthey could access the BBM subsidy funds forchildcare institutions.

It is also important to note that no data iscollected or available about private funding tochildcare institutions across the country. If theresearch in Aceh in the context of the post-tsunami is anything to go by, private fundingthrough religious organisations, foreigngovernments, international organisations,private companies, as well as individualsdonations through the door is considerable.The extent to which this funding is also


page

30

contributing to the apparent increase in thenumber of childcare institutions is simply notknown and is unlikely to be known as long asthese institutions are not required to keep anyfinancial record of the assistance they get.

Indonesia: a social welfare society?

A second important factor that hasaffected the way social services are deliveredin Indonesia is the fact that even before theestablishment of the Indonesian State, the roleof the community and non governmentalagencies including religious organizations inensuring the social welfare of its people wasunderstood as critical. The community andreligious groups understood their roles in socialterms and their responsibility towards themembers of their communities was clearlylinked to improving their welfare situation.Social responsibility underlies both religiousand cultural values and the care of thosevulnerable, particularly children, is understoodto be both a state and a communityresponsibility. In that sense, Indonesia has beenreferred to as a ‘welfare society’ rather than awelfare ‘state’, highlighting the key role thatcommunity organizations had from the startin ensuring the welfare of their members.38

Community support for social welfare wasa clear part of the fight for self determinationin Indonesia as the community took on therole of supporting those who were fighting andtheir families. The value of social solidaritybecame the foundation of the policies andprogrammes of DEPSOS. The Ministry hasmade the 22nd December the National Day ofSocial Solidarity in order to encourage socialsolidarity as a key value for the communityand encourage its role in the delivery of socialservices.

Ensuring and providing for the welfare ofthe most vulnerable members of society,especially orphaned or fatherless children, hastraditionally been an important part of thesocial welfare role of the community inIndonesia. Members of the communities thatwere better off took on the responsibility ofeither caring for or supporting children whowere either without parental care or who were

deemed neglected. This practice was veryentrenched in the communities of Java,Sumatera as well as other parts of Indonesiawhere the system of extended family wouldalso include members of the community whohad no blood relation to the child but whostill took on responsibility for his or her care.This practice was further reinforced byreligious values which encouraged providingsupport in particular for orphans and othervulnerable children. In Islam, providing supportto orphans and fatherless children is a key partof demonstrating one’s commitment toreligious faith and practice. Those that helpchildren who are orphaned will be rewardedin heaven and are seen to be particularlyworthy individuals. 39 A recent quote by someWorld Bank volunteers in Indonesia speakingabout the day out they had organized forchildren from a childcare institutions in Acehillustrates this well, “In our culture we have abelief that those who serve in orphanages willobtain eternal bliss after this life”40. SimilarlyChristian communities refer to the teachingof their faith to emphasize the important rolethat charity towards the most vulnerablemembers of their communities, in particularorphaned children and widows, plays inreligious practice.

In that context, supporting children whoare in need in the community can be doneeither directly by caring for the individual childor by supporting children in need through aninstitution. The way care or support is provideddoes not have to follow a particular approachbut is left to the individual to decide accordingto their beliefs and situation. Muslims are alsorequired to show their faith through donationsincluding land (wakaf tanah), an annual donationof 2.5% of one’s wage (zakat maal), as well asother donations and contribution in kind andfinancial particularly during the month ofRamadan. During this period, assistance to theorphans including food and money gifts, eatingor visiting them or paying for them to pray onone’s behalf becomes a particularly importantactivity.

The emphasis in Islam on providingsupport to the orphans has been an importantfactor in the establishment and growth of


page

31

childcare institutions in Indonesia, especiallythrough the work of a number of Islamicorganisations such as Nahdatul Ulama,Muhammadiyah, Hidayatullah and NahdatulWathon. The institutions under thesenetworks are organised around the structureof management and the approach used by theseorganisations. As this research shows, theestablishment of a childcare institution underthese networks is not only about providing careto vulnerable children but also to create newrecruits and members of the organisation(cadres) in order to fulfil the overall aims ofthe organisation and implement itsprogrammes. This in turn illustrates the factthat these institutions are seen by theseorganisations as a means to reach communitiesat the very local level and extend theirnetworks both geographically and in terms ofthe number of its followers. As a result it alsoleads to an increase in the number of childcareinstitutions.

While this research is looking atinstitutions whose primary purpose is toprovide care for ‘neglected and abandonedchildren’, the social welfare role that Islamicorganizations have played in Indonesia throughthe establishment of Islamic boarding schools(pesantren) also must be understood. Thereare an estimated 14,655 pesantren in Indonesiathat provide Islamic education for 3,364,180children41. Islamic boarding schools havetraditionally played an important role inproviding religious and in some cases formaleducation to the poorest members of theircommunity. For the majority of the very poor,sending their child to an Islamic boardingschool for education is not just a religiouschoice but an economic necessity as the fees

and costs tend to be very low compared tothose of state schools, at least in the greatmajority of traditional pesantren. As a resultmany children from particularly vulnerablefamilies including children who are orphanedor neglected have been ‘cared’ for traditionallythrough the pesantren.

While the aims and the social role andstatus of a pesantren are clearly different tothat of a childcare institution, whereby theformer is focused primarily on the provisionof education to children, the reality is thatchildren studying at a pesantren also spend thegreater part of their childhood livingpermanently in these facilities. Starting generallyfrom around 6 years of age, children leave thepesantren at about 18 to 20 years of age. Whilecontact with family is maintained and visitsgenerally occur once a year for Ramadan, thereality is that the child’s care and developmentis also in the hands of the pesantren and theorganization running them. In fact it is becomingincreasingly harder to differentiate betweenreligious boarding schools and childcareinstitutions, particularly as more and morepesantren are also formally opening andregistering childcare institutions. In that regard,while recognizing the different focus of religiousboarding schools, it is clear that any institutionwhich is primarily responsible for a child’s wellbeing and life on a daily basis will need to ensurethat some very fundamental standards of careare met. While at this stage no regulatorysystem exists, it will be crucial for standards ofcare to apply not only to the childcareinstitutions but to the religious boardingschools and any other facility which takes onthe primary care role for children.


page

32

Joint responsibility or no responsibility?

The key role of community and religiousgroups in Indonesia in social welfare has notonly influenced the way social services havebeen delivered but also the way responsibilityfor the welfare of children has beenunderstood. Joint responsibility betweenGovernment and the community (members ofsociety) for social welfare has been clearlyarticulated under the law. While Law no 4 onChild Welfare (1979) states that parents havethe primary responsibility for the care ofchildren, it also emphasizes that social welfareefforts towards children will carried out by ‘theState and/or the community’, the focus of theState’s own efforts being to ‘direct, guide, supportand monitor the delivery of services by thecommunity’.42 Furthermore it states that thoseservices are to be delivered through ‘childcareinstitutions (Panti) as well as outside thoseinstitutions’. 43

The Law on Child Protection placesresponsibility jointly on all actors: ‘the state,government, community, the family and parentsshall all be responsible and accountable forprotecting children.’ 44 It differentiates betweenthe roles mainly in terms of the State and theGovernment being responsible for ‘putting inplace infrastructures and facilities designed toprovide protection for children’ and an illdefined oversight role . Meanwhile thecommunity is to fulfil its obligations andresponsibilities in protecting children throughthe implementation/delivery of protection atthat level. While the law is confusingly silenton what this means, there is certainly animplication that it is primarily in the deliveryof services that the community is seen to beplaying a fundamental role. DEPSOS in itsGuidelines for the care of children in need of specialprotection (2004) defines the division ofresponsibility between the Governmentagencies and the community or ‘the public’ interms of mutual collaboration butacknowledges also an overall responsibility onthe part of the Government ‘to provide anadequate institutional and legislative framework,exercise supervision and control, provide protectionto all who require it, to effect initial intervention, toassist in the treatment of the child and to facilitate

referrals’. 45 Meanwhile it qualifies the role ofthe community in relation to children withspecial protection needs as mainly ‘preventative’while also referring to its role in creating ‘aconducive environment for the proper growth anddevelopment of children, so that children in needof special protection can quickly recover.’

Yet it is also clear from the list of‘community’ mechanisms that the Guidelinesgoes on to identify, that it would be ‘theInstitutions that provide services directly to children,their families, and the community, including childprotection services’ that would be the actualimplementers. Among those listed apart fromthe schools and play groups, it is primarily thechildcare institutions that are likely to be themain actors as few if any of the other serviceslisted are available at the community level inIndonesia, particularly outside of majoreconomic centres or urban centres. 46

The lack of clarity in terms of the jointroles and responsibilities of the State and thecommunity in the delivery of social servicesincluding for children has led some to see thisas an attempt by the State to evade its ultimateresponsibility towards children in Indonesia.Certainly, the lack of basic data on childrenand the childcare facilities across Indonesiaindicate that at the very least the Governmentis unable to ‘keep up’ with the services thatare provided at the community level by a rangeof local and national organisations.

Decentralisation: the changing role of DEPSOS.

Another crucial factor that affected theway social services for children have beendelivered in Indonesia was the dissolution ofthe Ministry of Social Affairs for a whole yearin 1999 followed by the radical decentralisationprocess that took place in Indonesia in 2000and which included transfer of responsibilityfor social services to the District and provinciallevels. The capacity of that Ministry to supportand supervise children’s services at the locallevel was always very limited, both as a resultof insufficient resources and a lack of effectivemechanism to ensure the implementation ofnational standards and policies at the local level.


page

33

It became even more so when the entireDepartment was temporarily disbanded underthe administration of President Gus Dur in1999.47 Although it was re-established a yearlater and its mandate reinstated, the radicalpolitical decentralisation process that begunin 2000 further undermined both the capacityand the role of DEPSOS in relation to theprovision of child care in institutions acrossIndonesia. Since then, apart from the financialsupport it provides to institutions, DEPSOShas seen its role as primarily a standard settingrole and it has focused on developing policiesand guidelines for the provision of children’sservices as well as piloting ‘best practice’childcare institutions.48 GovernmentRegulation Number 2 of 1988 on Social WelfareEfforts for Children with Problems clearly setsout the Ministry’s role over such institutionsas a regulatory one, including setting ‘therequirements and procedures for theestablishment of childcare institutions’ as wellas ‘to supervise child welfare activitiesundertaken by the community’. In practicethough, DEPSOS has taken more of apromotional approach to this mandate ratherthan a regulatory one, possibly reflecting theshift in the balance of power towards theprovinces and districts which may or may notbe open to oversight from the centralgovernment.

Yet, as we have seen, the Ministry hascontinued to be one of the primary sourcesof funding for the childcare institutions boththrough the DEKON and the BBM subsidy. Thisshould put it in a constructive position toensure that only institutions that follow someclear minimum standards would be entitled toreceive the funding from year to year, thusyielding considerable power to ensure betterstandards are applied. In reality though, littlesupervision and monitoring has taken place andonly within the very narrow remit of ensuringthat money received has been spent in thatcontext. The focus has been almost entirelyon financial accountability and not at all onaccountability towards standards of care forchildren. The fact that data collected by theMinistry in relation to childcare institutionsonly relates to the BBM subsidy and the couple

of institutions it runs and that this data is purelyquantitative, points to a major gap in theimplementation of the regulatory role that theMinistry was given under GovernmentRegulation No 2 1988 and that was yet againreaffirmed even in the context of thedecentralisation process.49

Law No 32 of 2004 on Local Governancereaffirmed the central government’s overallresponsibility for ensuring the application ofminimum standards in social welfare in thecontext of local autonomy while localgovernment is responsible for the delivery ofthe actual services.50 As a result DEPSOS hascontinued to develop and update policies andguidelines in relation to the delivery of socialservices including children in childcareinstitutions and outside. It has also ‘socialised’these in the Provinces and with the localauthorities responsible for social welfare acrossIndonesia. Nonetheless it has had fewmechanisms for assessing the extent to whichthese are being followed and for ensuring theirenforcement except in the childcareinstitutions that are government run. In theabsence of an established licensing system anda clear supervisory mechanism for all childcareinstitutions, DEPSOS and the local welfareauthorities have limited scope for ensuring thatminimum standards are understood andrespected.

The Ministry though, has also focused itsefforts on the ‘Social Laboratorium’ providedfor under the special sphere/area under theLocal Governance Law, where the centralgovernment retains direct control and whereit ‘pilots’ social welfare interventions such asthe Units of Technical Interventions (UPT),residential social institutions which are run byDEPSOS and are meant to implement goodpractice51. DEPSOS runs two childcareinstitutions for example for ‘neglected children’in Central Java and Jambi where professionaltraining and development is highlighted. Theextent to which the Ministry is able to ensurethat such ‘models’ are actually replicated inother provinces and districts is limited toenabling study visits by managers of otherinstitutions who are interested and leaders oflocal authorities.


page

34

The Ministry of Social Affairs is responsiblefor the development and implementation ofminimum standards for the delivery of socialservices by local authorities and by privateorganisations and community groups in acontext where local autonomy has been newlyasserted and the overwhelming majority ofchildcare institutions are owned and run byprivate organisations. This has represented areal challenge for the Ministry and the sub-directorate responsible for children’s services.In some cases, this has led the sub-directorateto focus its efforts on its own institutions andlocal government ones, viewing its role inrelation to the other childcare institutions asmainly the provision of financial supportthrough the BBM subsidy and the promotionof guidelines and policies.

This has in turn led to a situation where itknows little about the situation of children ininstitutions across Indonesia and in someinstances has relinquished its ultimateresponsibility to ensure that the rights of allchildren who are in care whether residentialor nor residential are protected. It is inrecognition of this situation that this researchhas been fully facilitated and supported by theMinistry, to ensure that it gains not only a muchbetter picture of the situation of children inchildcare institutions across Indonesia but alsoof the extent to which minimum standards arebeing implemented and if not, how the Ministrycan better play its crucial regulatory role toprotect children nationally.


page

35

Footnotes:

1 In addition to the 18 childcare institutions, prior to decentralisation the government ran 36 vocational traininginstitutions for children who have dropped out of school (PSBR), 7 institutions for children who have learningdifficulties (PSPA) and 5 Day care centres (PSTPA). Since decentralisation the government has not kept dataabout how many of the institutions handed over to the local government are still running and how many new oneshave been established by the local government at either provincial or district level.

2 Manual of Technical Guidelines for the delivery of the Subsidy Program for Additional Food Costs for Social CareInstitutions (2005) DEPSOS RI. p.1-2

3 SC/DEPSOS: Rapid Assessment p.284 SC/DEPSOS: Rapid Assessment p.285 BPS 2000 Population Census: http://www.bps.go.id/sector/population/table1.shtml6 SC/DEPSOS Rapid Survey p. 247 CRC/C/65/Add.23: Table 7 Page 428 It is unclear where the data for the 1990/1991 and 1997/1998 comes from and DEPSOS has not kept data records

for the previous decade on the situation of childcare institutions. The data however seems at odd with the datawhich the government advanced in its first report to the Committee on the Rights of the Child where it referred to“4,305 foster care centres in Indonesia”. It is also unclear what those centres include and what the source for thatdata is. See CRC/C/3/Add.10 (14 January 1993)

9 Interview with staff of PP Muhammadiyah, August 200710 Population Modul Survey (MK) 2000, PBS. Data extracted for the Inter-Agency Family based care Working Group.11 According to this data, the percentage of children under 15 who are orphans (father and mother have died) and

are living in the community is 0.36%.12 General Guidelines for the operation of childcare institutions. DEPSOS. 2002. p.513 Article 11(2) Law Number 4 of 1979 on children’s welfare (Official Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia 1979

Number 32, Supplement to the Official Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia Number 3143; See also GovernmentRegulation Number 2 of 1998 on improving the welfare of children with problems;

14 See 1992 DEPSOS booklet but also “Standardisasi Panti Sosial” Perubahan Keputusan Menteri Kesehatan danKesejahteraan Sosial Nomor 193/MENKES-KESOS/III/2000 tentang Standardisasi Panti Sosial (50/HUK/2004)pp 4-6.

15 Government Regulation Number 2 of 1998 on improving the welfare of children with problems.16 General Guidelines for the Operation of Childcare Institutions as Part of the Provision of Services to Neglected

Children. (2002) DEPSOS. Part D, 2 (E).17 See Article 1, Law Number 4 of 1979 on children’s welfare. See also Badan Pelatihan dan Pengembangan Sosial

Departemen Sosial, 2004: 5)18 Guidelines for the Provision of Social Services to Neglected Children outside of institutions, (2004): DEPSOS,

Chapter II, B. 1.19 Law No 4 of 1979 on Children’s Welfare, Articles 4, 5 and 9.20 Law No 23 on Child Protection (2002), Article 1(6).21 General Guidelines for the Operation of Childcare Institutions as Part of the Provision of Services to Neglected

Children. (2002) DEPSOS, Directorate General of Social and Rehabilitation Services, Directorate of Children’sSocial Services; General Guidelines for the Provision of Social Services to Children in Childcare Institutions(2004) DEPSOS, Directorate General of Social and Rehabilitation Services, Directorate of Children’s SocialServices; Guidelines for the Provision of Social Services to Neglected Children outside of institutions, (2004)DEPSOS, Directorate General of Social and Rehabilitation Services.

22 DEPSOS’s General Guidelines for the Provision of Social Services to Children in Childcare Institutions (2004)defines a childcare institution as ‘a professional service provider that is responsible for the provision of care toneglected children in such a way as to substitute for the roles of their parents’. Chapter 1 C 2. (Directorate ofChildren’s Social Services, 2004: 4).

23 “A social work approach represents a professional application that is based on a combination of art, skill andknowledge as tested based on professional norms. The social work approach stresses cross-sectoral, cross-profession, and cross-discipline efforts as part of a service network, which nowadays is known as casemanagement.”

24 “By collaborative networks is meant cooperative networks that are coordinated as between the childcare institutionin question and other parties in the context of improving the quality of services provided to children.“


page

36

25 Every childcare institution requires social support if it is to be maintained. Without such social support, it may betaken for granted that the sustainability of the service will face difficulties.

26 General Guidelines for the Provision of Social Services to Children in Childcare Institutions (2004) DEPSOS,Chapter II B.

27 Guidelines for the Provision of Social Services to Neglected Children outside of institutions, (2004): DEPSOS,Directorate General of Social and Rehabilitation Services. Chapter I D.3.

28 Guidelines for the Provision of Social Services to Neglected Children outside of institutions, (2004): DEPSOS,Chapter II, D.5.

29 General Guidelines for the Provision of Social Services to Children in Childcare Institutions (2004) DEPSOS.Chapter I, A.

30 Law No 23 (2002) on Child Protection, Part V, Articles 59-71.31 Law No 23 (2002) on Child Protection, Article 13.32 Law No 23 (2002) on Child Protection, Article 26.33 It is important to note that the Indonesian text of the law uses the word “lembaga“ which can be translated in

English as “institution“ but also as “organization“ and thus not necessarily referring to an actual residential carefacility. At the same time, the context in which it is given and the references in the related articles to “accommodation“and “raising/taking care of“ children imply that what is referred to is either the residential care facility or theorganization running some form of alternative care. See Law No 23 (2002) on Child Protection, Article 55.

34 Law No 23 (2002) on Child Protection, Articles 57, 5835 Law No 23 (2002) on Child Protection, Articles 30, 31. The language used by the Child Protection Law is confusing

in that regard and will need to be clarified through Government regulations. The Articles referring to the need fora Court Order use the word “may“ submit an application to the court both in the case of a Court Order for revocationof parental rights or supervisory measures or for a Court determination that a child is neglected, leaving it unclearas to whether this is a requirement or not in all cases. In addition, the Articles relating to fostering which is againcan be carried by an institution or through an institution does not stipulate any requirement for the determinationthat the parents are “unable to guarantee the [child’s] proper physical, mental, spiritual and social development“(Article 37). It is thus unclear whether institutions require a court order to ‘foster’ such a child.

36 SC/DEPSOS: Rapid Assessment, p.27,37 Minister of Social Affairs of the Republic of Indonesia, Social Minister Regulation of The Republic of Indonesia No:

82/HUK/2005 on Organization and Working Mechanism Ministry of Social Affairs (2005)38 Presentation by Mr Makmur Sunusi, Director General of Social Services and Rehabilitation to the Alternative Care

Regional Workshop organized by UNICEF Bangkok (28 – 29 November 2005)39 Reference is in particular made in this context to the Holy Quran, Surah 107. Al-Ma‘un (Small Kindnesses,

Almsgiving, Have You Seen?).40 ‘World Bank staff volunteer effort: Visit to Orphanage’, August 22, 2007 at http://go.worldbank.org/BQEQ99HFF041 Directorate General of Islamic organisations, 2003-200442 Law No 4 of 1979 on Children’s Welfare, Article 11(2), (4).43 Law No 4 of 1979 on Children’s Welfare, Article 11 (3) and Government Regulation Number 2 of 1998 on improving

the welfare of children with problems. Article 6 (3).44 Law No 23 of 2002 on Child Protection; Articles 20 and 25.45 Guidelines for the Care of Children in Need of Special Protection (2004) DEPSOS Chapter III. A. 246 The institutions listed in the guidelines as ‘providing services directly to children, their families, and the community,

including child protection services’ were: Play groups and crèches, Schools, Childcare institutions (PSAA),institutions for children with learning difficulties (PSPA), Shelters for homeless/street children, Rehabilitation centres,family counselling centres (LK3), Protection homes/shelters, trauma centres, crisis centres, integrated crisiscentres (PKT), hospitals, special service rooms (RPK), police and disaster management centres (Satlak PBP).

47 Presidential Decree Number 101 of 200148 The two ‘pilot’ childcare institutions run by DEPSOS are located in Pati, Central Java and Jambi, Sumatera. For

an assessment of Pati see Section XIV.49 Presidential Decree Number 102 of 2001 on the status, duties, functions, powers, organizational structure and

working procedures of government departments including article 53 which among other things requires theDepartment of Social Welfare to develop technical standards and policies which must be followed by local authorities.

50 Law No 32 (2004) on Local Governance. See in particular Articles 2(3), 13, 14 and 16.51 Law No 32 (2004) on Local Governance. Article 1(19) and Elucidations on Law No 32 (2004) Chapter I (2).

“Someone That Matters” | IV. National standards for childcare

page

37

IV. National standards forchildcare

THE SETTING OF MINIMUM standards and the regulation of childcare institutions is, as wehave seen, under the responsibility of the Ministry of Social Services. As a result, its Directoratefor Children’s Services has regularly produced and updated technical guidelines and manuals forthe delivery of social services to children in particular in institutions and outside of institutions.Despite this, the Ministry has traditionally separated its responsibility for the registration ofsocial organisations from its responsibility for ensuring minimum standards in the services providedby those organisations. Separate Directorates are responsible for each.

According to Decision No 50/HUK/2004 by the Minister for Social Services on theStandardization of Social Care Institutions, these institutions “must have proof of their legality fromthe competent authorities in order to get recognition and professional guidance”.1


page

38

Three documents are identified under theexisting standards to fill this requirement, anorganisational statement establishing the aimsand purpose of the social organisation (AD/ART), an Act of Notary and a Letter ofAuthorization for its operations such as a SuratIzin Kegiatan (SIK).2 The SIK is a formaldocument of registration for SocialOrganisations which is provided by DEPSOSor DINSOS at the national, provincial or districtlevels. The SIK provides evidence of registrationand permission to operate as a social welfareorganisation. It includes only the name of theorganisation, the address of the Secretariat, thename of the Chairman/Director, the area andtypes of activities, and the date of expiration.It does not provide any indication ofqualification or capacity to operate as a socialorganisation or for that matter authority tooperate a specific institution such as a childcareinstitution. Letters of Authorization must berenewed periodically, usually every two orthree years by DEPSOS or the local Office ofSocial Welfare at Provincial or District levels.The DEPSOS department responsible forhandling the registration of social organisationsis the Directorate for the Social CommmunityInstitutions which is located in a differentDirectorate General than the one responsiblefor technical standards.

As a result there is no system for theregistration of the individual institution itself.This means that those who establish a childcareinstitution do not need to register as long asthey have some sort of SIK or registrationnumber showing that their parent organisationis registered as a social organisation. In addition,research has shown that various authoritiesuse a different SIK system so that for example,depending on its jurisdiction and whichauthority it has approached the socialorganisation may get its authorisation from thedistrict level authorities or instead from theProvincial or even the national level. Thereseems to be no common system between thedifferent level authorities or any rules regardingwhich authorization is needed by which socialorganisation.

As a result of using the SIK system, socialagencies do not have any comprehensive

system of data collection that would enablethem to know how many childcare institutionsare located within their territory or what newinstitutions are being planned or set up and bywhom. In addition, as the SIK system is neitherrelated to an individual childcare institution norto the work of authorities responsible forensuring minimum standards, no criteria forthe establishment of childcare institutions havebeen provided. Anyone who can successfullyargue that he or she is running a ‘social’organisation has sufficient legal basis forestablishing a childcare institution regardlessof whether they have any experience in thematter, they have the required skills, resourceor desired competencies to take care ofchildren. This means that there is in effect nolicensing system in Indonesia for childcareinstitutions. Anyone is deemed able andcompetent to run such an institution providedthey possess these 3 documents.

In 2004, the Ministry produced a Manualfor the Standardization of the Social AssistanceInstitutions (Panti Sosial). Covering the rangeof institutions caring for vulnerable groups asdefined under the social welfare frameworkof DEPSOS including the 15 types ofinstitutions referred to above. After initial‘socialisation’ of the standards in a number ofProvinces in 2005, the Manual was amendedand a new version published in 2006. Thestandards are deemed to be applicable to allsuch institutions, whether government run orprivately run and are divided into standardsthat are common to all such institutions andadditional required of each type of institution.The standards are primarily focused on themanagerial aspects of these institutions andparticularly to the fulfilment of certainreporting requirements. Beyond therequirement to have the three documentscertifying the legality of the institution asexplained above, the standards refer primarilyto the type of staff and the type of reportswhich these institutions should have. Startingfrom documentation about the vision andmission of the organisation and itsorganisational structure, it further requires arange of reports on its budget, on its staffingand on the assistance and services it provides.


page

39

The focus is on the institution having a specifiednumber of posts, infrastructures and financialreporting in place. For example, every socialinstitution should have a leadership team with:a head of the institution, a deputy head andhead of units, an operational team comprisinga social worker, an instructor, a spiritualcounsellor and guide, a functional officer, aparamedic, other professional and a supportteam that includes a ‘head of barrack’ ordormitory, a carer, a cook, a cleaner, a guardand a driver. 3

In relation specifically to childcareinstitutions (PSAA), the standards refer to anumber of steps which must be followed interms of services provided including:

1) an outreach stage that includes thesocialisation of the institution’sprogramme in the community, therecruitment of potential ‘client’, theselection of these candidates and theprocess of registration and placement aswell as case conferencing.

2) A stage of recognition and understandingof the problem which involve an analysisof the condition of the client, of thecondition of the family, of theirenvironment; an analysis of thecharacteristics of the ‘problem’ and theroot causes and implication of that‘problem’, finally an analysis of the existingcapacity to overcome that ‘problem’ andresources that can be called upon,together with case conferencing.

3) A stage of planning for the assistance tobe provided including its aim, its type, the

resource that it will call upon and caseconferencing.

4) A stage of implementation of theprogramme that may include physical andhealth guidance, mental and psychologicalguidance that includes religious, disciplineand psycho-social support, social guidance,vocational training, educational guidanceand support, individual guidance includingindividual counselling and social therapy,group guidance which includes group workand counselling, and finally the preparationof the social environment including family,community and school or work.

5) A stage of ‘post assistance’ (similar to ‘aftercare’) which includes the termination of

services to the client, referral and return/reintegration into the home, as well asorientation towards the work place,training place. Finally, the follow-up thatinvolves the monitoring and supervisionof the client who has returned either tohis/her family or entered the workplace. 4

Reports and documentation illustrating allthe above should be available. In addition, thestandards provide a staff to client ratio forchildcare institution which should be:

- Social worker: 1 for every 5 children- Doctor: 1 for every 5 children- Teacher: 1 for every 5 children.5

The extent to which childcare institutionsfulfil these standards and criteria is supposedto be the subject of assessment and monitoringfrom a ‘Commission on the Accreditation ofSocial Assistance Institutions (Komisi Akreditasi


page

40

Panti Sosial -KAPS) and its Survey Team. 6 Thissystem has yet to come into force and noprocess of accreditation or monitoring has sofar been established. The focus of theaccreditation guidelines however is on rankingthe institutions including the childcareinstitutions according to 3 categories (A, B, C)based primarily on whether they fulfil theseoperational requirements rather than anyassessment of the quality of services provided.In addition it is not made clear what theimplications are for an institution should theyfall under any of these categories and whetherbeing relegated to a lower category has anyimplication for the financial support forexample received by the institution or the levelof support its requires to ensure its standardsare improved.

While the standards go some way torespond to the clear legal responsibilityarticulated in Child Protection Law No 23 inrelation to the ‘oversight and supervision’ thatmust be carried out by the Ministry of SocialAffairs7, their focus on organisational structuresand administrative requirements that must bemet leave entirely open the fundamentalquestion of what should be the objectives ofthose institutions, who they should serve andhow, and what quality of services is requiredby the Government in that regard.

Clearly the standards should beunderstood in light of other related policydocuments such as the DEPSOS Guidelines forthe provision of child care in institution or theGuidelines for the provision of child careoutside of institutions although the Manual failsto refer to them. The Guidelines do providesome important guidance as to the rolechildcare institutions are expected to play aswell as some of the overall principles for theoperation of such institutions. In particular, itarticulates some of the ‘values on which serviceprovision should be based’:

‘1. Upholding, respecting and holding in highregard the rights of children

2. Every child has the right to determine his/herown destiny

3. All children shall have the same opportunities,free of any form of discrimination

4. Professionalism in service provision

5. Accessibility and Relevance.’8

The recognition that such services shouldbe based on the rights of the child and respondto the uniqueness of each individual child andhis/her particular situation represents a veryimportant statement of principle. In orderhowever to ensure that such principlesunderpin the provision of all services ininstitutions providing care to children inIndonesia a clear articulation of what thismeans in practice is needed. This should bereflected not only in terms of how servicesare provided but which children would mostbenefit from such services and in what context.The Standards should be playing that crucialrole and enabling child care institutions andthe Ministry of Social Affairs to measure thequality of the services provided. Without thedevelopment of more comprehensivestandards specific to childcare institutionslinking the values and principles on which theseinstitutions should operate together with therequired services and processes which theyshould provide for children at a minimum, theMinistry of Social Affairs is simply not going tobe in a position to know whether any of theimportant policy and technical guidelines it hasissued are actually being implemented.

It is important to note in that regard thatboth the Guidelines and the Child ProtectionLaw refer to the fact that children’sparticipation in decisions that affect them inthe delivery of services is a key principle to befollowed. The child’s right to ‘determine his/herown destiny is […] founded on the belief thatevery child possesses the ability to make decisionsabout matters that are of importance to him/her.’9

The Child Protection law requires thegovernment in the performance of ‘its duties ofmaintenance and upkeep’ for neglected children’to ‘make efforts to ensure that a child canparticipate, express his/her views […], receive bothoral and written information in accordance withhis/her age and development; organise andassociate; have sufficient time to rest, play, haverecreation, express his/her creativity and engagein artistic expression and have play facilities thatmeet health and safety requirements’.10 None of


page

41

these requirements are at all included in theManual of Standards for Social Institutions. Therights of children in care to participate andreceive relevant information are not mentionedat all. In fact the Survey Team is not requiredto speak to children or any other target of theservices provided by the Social Careinstitutions in their work to assess whetherthe standards have been met. The explanationof the ways of working for the Survey Teamunder the Manual for the Accreditation ofSocial Care institutions only requires the teamto interview ‘those people who have thecompetency according to their work/function andwho are given permission to provide anexplanation.’11

While DEPSOS has attempted to promotethe standards with the Managers of institutions,

as we have seen it has not linkedimplementation of these standards to any ofthe assistance programme it is providing. Thisundermines seriously its ability to regulate theprovision of services for children. On the onehand its efforts are encouraging an expansionof the number of such institutions throughfinancial support that is using no other criteriathan the number of children being cared forand the number of institution. On the otherhand it is attempting to ensure minimumstandards of care are applied by the very sameinstitutions. This contradictory approach islikely to undermine the capacity of theGovernment at both local and national levelto ensure that childcare institutions are run asprofessional social welfare institutions that arein the best interest of vulnerable children.

Footnotes:1 Standardization for Social Care Institutions (2004) p.11. Social Welfare Education and Research Board, Ministry of

Social Affairs.2 In addition, under Law No 16 of 2001 on Private Foundations, these organisations are required under Article 11(2)

to get their Founding documents certified by the provincial office of the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights.

3 Standardization for Social Care Institutions (2006) p.22. Section for Training and Social Development, the Ministryof Social Affairs.

4 Standardization for Social Care Institutions (2006) p.22. Section for Training and Social Development, the Ministryof Social Affairs.

5 Standardization for Social Care Institutions (2006) p.40.6 Guidelines on the Accreditation of the Social Care Institution (Panti Sosial) Keputusan Menteri Sosial Republik of

Indonesia No: 50/HUK/2004. Appendix III.7 Law no 23, Article 55 (4).8 General Guidelines for the Provision of Social Services to Children in Childcare Institutions (2004) DEPSOS,

Directorate General of Social and Rehabilitation Services, Directorate of Children’s Social Services Development.Chapter II, Section D.

9 General Guidelines for the Provision of Social Services to Children in Childcare Institutions (2004) DEPSOS.Chapter II, Section D.

10 Law no 23 Article 56.11 Guidelines on the Accreditation of the Social Care Institution (Panti Sosial) Keputusan Menteri Sosial Republik of

Indonesia No: 50/HUK/2004. Section D. Appendix III.


page

42

“Someone That Matters” | V. International standards relating to children without parental care

page

43

V. International standardsrelating to children withoutparental care

INTERNATIONAL LAW has established a number of fundamental principles in relation tochildren’s rights to care and protection. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, ratifiedby indonesia in 1990, reaffirms the crucial role that the family plays ‘as the fundamental group ofsociety and the natural environment for the growth and well-being of all its members and particularlychildren. […T]he child, for the full and harmonious development of his or her personality, should grow upin a family environment, in an atmosphere of happiness, love and understanding.’ 1

In line with this, the Convention places the primary responsibility for the care and protectionof children on parents and families. The State’s overall and ultimate responsibility is in ensuringthat those carers are able to fulfil fully their role towards children by supporting them andensuring that they have access to the fundamental services and conditions which are essential toensure that their children’s rights are fully respected and implemented. 2


page

44

The Convention articulates clearly theprinciple that children should not be separatedfrom their parents against their will unless it isdeemed to be in their best interest and thiscan only be done through a determination bythe competent authorities that is in accordancewith the law and can be judicially reviewed.The examples given by the Convention pointto cases where the child is being abused orneglected by the parents or where as a resultof separation a child goes to live with one ofthe parents.3 In cases where it may be in thebest interest of the child to be removed fromhis/her parent or where parents are dead orhave abandoned the child, the emphasis shouldbe on placing the child with the remaining familyincluding extended family. This is furtherunderlined in the 1986 Declaration on Socialand Legal Principles relating to the Protectionand Welfare of Children which states: ‘Whencare by the child’s own parents is unavailable orinappropriate, care by relatives of the child’sparents, by another substitute –foster or adoptive-family or, if necessary, by an appropriate institutionshould be considered’.4 As a result internationalstandards firmly point to the familyenvironment, including from a non bloodrelated family, as being the preferred option inall cases where children are either parentlessthrough death or abandonment or in the caseswhere the child has had to be removed fromthe parental care for his/her own safety.Institutional care is clearly identified as a lastresort and as the least desirable option.

This emphasis on a family environmentwas developed partly as a result of evidencefrom research internationally that has shownthe crucial role of the family context on theproper growth and development of the childnot only physically and emotionally but alsosocially.5 As the international body in chargeof reviewing the implementation of theConvention, the Committee on the Rights ofthe Child, pointed out recently ‘Socialization andacquisition of values are developed within the familyand human relations within the family context arethe most important links for the child’s life infuture.’6

Equally, growing evidence of the negativeimpact of institutionalisation on the

development and well being of children hasreinforced the need to see institutional careas a very last option and only a temporary one.In light of this the Committee on the Rights ofthe child has repeated its call on Governmentsto ‘develop the use of alternative measures in orderto avoid long-term placement of children ininstitutions that do not provide the type of settingchildren need, not only for survival, but also fordevelopment, including psychological, mental,spiritual, moral, and social development, in amanner compatible with human dignity and toprepare the child for individual life in a free society,in accordance with article 6.2 of the Convention.’7

International law thus points to the roleof the State as enabling parents to fulfil theircrucial role and where they are unable to doso, to look to the child’s extended family or toprovide an alternative family setting for thechild through fostering or adoption rather thanlooking at an institutional care setting as thedesirable alternative.

In addition, it has been emphasised thatthe fact that a family is poor and unable toprovide their children with adequate accessto food, health, education, housing, food shouldnot be the reason for separating a girl or aboy from her or his family but instead the Statehas a responsibility to ensure that the mostvulnerable families and children are able toaccess the support needed to make sure thatthey do.8 States parties should ‘ensure thatpoverty as such should not lead to the separationdecision and to the out-of-home placement’ andas a result they should ‘increase efforts to providematerial assistance and support to economicallyand/or socially disadvantaged children and theirfamilies.’ 9

Beyond the prioritisation of family basedcare and supporting children within a familyenvironment, international law also stipulatesa number of crucial requirements in relationto the care and protection of children.

These include:

4 Right to special protection forchildren deprived of their familyenvironment. Whether a child isdeprived of that environment temporarily


page

45

or permanently, that child is entitled tospecial assistance that should include theprovision of alternative care includingfoster placement, kafalah of Islamic law,adoption, or, if necessary, placement insuitable institutions for the care ofchildren. (UN CRC Article 20, Article 9,Article 19, Article 22, Article 38)

4 Review of placement: Any placementfor the purpose of the child’s care,protection or treatment should bereviewed periodically. The aim is to ensureeffective monitoring of the child’s situationas well as a review of whether a particularplacement is still in the child’s best interest.(Article 25, Article 19, Article 21)

4 Maintaining contact with the family:The importance of a child retaining regularcontact with his or her parents and familyis restated in all circumstances where achild is separated from them, whethertemporarily or permanently. The child hasa right to maintain ‘personal relations anddirect contact with both parents on aregular basis’. The child has also the rightto preserve his or her identity including[…] family relations; the right to know andbe cared for by his or her parents. (Article9(3), Article 10(2), Article 8(1), Article7(1))

4 Family reunification: Bearing in mindthe emphasis on children remaining withand being cared for by their families, theneed to ensure that children are reunifiedwith their parents and families isspecifically provided for, whetherseparation results from the death of aparent, breakdown of marriage orrelationship, abandonment or the resultof a conflict or emergency. (Article 7,Article 9, Article 10, Article 11, Article20, Article 22)

4 Preservation of identity: A child’s rightto a legal, social and cultural identity is inmost circumstances directly linked to achild’s family. The right to a name and tobe registered at birth is crucial to theprotection of that child’s identity and his/her citizenship and should be provided

without discrimination. Therefore birthregistration should be provided to allchildren regardless among other things ofthe marital status of his/her parent.Preservation of identity is also linked tothe child’s right to know and maintaincontact with his or her family. In relationto children deprived of parental care, animportant criteria in the choice of suitablealternative care should be the ‘desirabilityof continuity in a child’s upbringing’ andto the child’s ethnic, religious, cultural andlinguistic background. This reinforces theimportance not only to prioritise thechild’s extended family as potential carersbut also families coming from within thechild’s own particular community. (Article7, Article 8, Article 20, Article 30).

4 Standards of care: The Convention onthe Rights of the Child stipulates clearlythe State’s responsibility to ensure that‘institutions, services and facilitiesresponsible for the care and protectionof children shall conform with thestandards established by competentauthorities, particularly in the areas ofsafety, health, in the number and suitabilityof their staff, as well as competentsupervision’. (Article 3(3))

In other words, beyond the responsibilityto ensure that care providers fulfil the fullrange of children’s rights, there is also aspecific responsibility on the State toensure that they abide by ‘minimum’standards in relation to the actual facilitiesand services they run. This entails not onlythe State defining and developing thoseStandards but clearly putting in placemechanisms to support, monitor andenforce such standards. While theConvention itself could not go into detailsabout what these standards should include,a number of other standards includingthose developed in the context of theadministration of juvenile justice weredeemed to be applicable to all institutionswhether private or public in which ‘aperson is not permitted to leave at will’,thus providing some basic framework ofstandards.10 In recent years, the


page

46

Committee on the Rights of the Child hasunderlined the need to develop morespecific standards to be applicable to allcare institutions for children. Many nationalauthorities and some regional bodies havealready developed their own standards andthere is now considerable agreementinternationally on some of the corestandards. As a result, internationalstandards for alternative care are beingdeveloped on the basis of the national andinternational experience of childcare.11

4 Children’s participation: The right ofchildren to form their own views and toexpress these views freely in all mattersaffecting them is one of the fundamentalprinciples underpinning international lawin relation to children. It recogniseschildren’s constantly evolving capacitywhich is a crucial tool for measuring theextent to which children are able tounderstand and make informed choicesand decisions of their own, and the extentto which parental and other adultdirection and guidance may be needed. Onthe other hand, it also recognises theimportance of taking into account a child’sviews on decisions which will affect himor her and provides for those views to begiven ‘due weight in accordance with theage and maturity of the child.’ There canbe few decisions as fundamental as thoserelating to the care situation of a child andas such there is a clear obligation to seekat all possible opportunities the view ofthe child as to his or her care situationbut also in relation to all the matters thatrelate to every day living in care. Childrenhave the right to be heard in all proceedingaffecting them, whether administrative orjudicial and this should include any decisionrelating to their care situation such as theappointment of a guardian or foster parent,adoption proceeding or proceedingsrelating to their placement in institutionalcare. (Article 5, Article 12, Article 17)

4 Professional care and services: Therequirement to establish fundamentalstandards of care for children in alternativecare does not only relate to the conditions

under which the child is going to live butalso the competence, number andsuitability of staff that work towards thecare of these children. Thus theGovernment is not merely required todevelop standards for the care itself butalso professional standards for the deliveryof those services. In relation to the careof children deprived of parental care, thisdoes not only mean skilled andprofessional care givers, social workers,health workers, police and lawenforcement officers able to support fullyand appropriately these children but alsothe establishment of professional supportsystems to prevent inappropriateseparation from parents and families,reinforce parental skills, assess and addressthe risk of abuse and neglect, as well ascarers that can understand and respondto children’s developmental and socialneeds. (Article 3, Article 19)

4 Protection from all forms ofviolence: Children’s right to protectionfrom all forms of abuse, neglect andexploitation is clearly stipulated to applyto any such violence committed while inthe care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) orany other person who has the care of thechild. This establishes not only a clearprohibition for any such acts but an actualpositive obligation to prevent, address andredress such violations of children’s rights.The reference to ‘all forms of physical ormental violence, injury or abuse, neglector negligent treatment, maltreatment orexploitation, including sexual abuse’underlines the fact that it is the physicaland personal integrity of children whichmust be protected and that any treatmentor punishment that humiliate or degradea child is prohibited under internationallaw. Thus, there can be no justificationincluding education, discipline, punishment,legal sanction, cultural or religious practiceor economic necessity that can be givento justify any of the above actions.

The fact that this prohibition includes allforms of corporal punishment and othercruel or degrading forms of punishment


page

47

was reaffirmed more recently by theCommittee on the Rights of the Child.12

In the context of institutions caring forchildren, any such acts including the useof solitary confinement should not onlybe totally prohibited but reporting systemsestablished to ensure that such acts aredetected and that immediate andappropriate responses are available andaccessible including by childrenthemselves.13 Children’s right to beprotected from all forms of sexual andeconomic exploitation also clearly applyto children in alternative care and prohibitsany forms of child labour that is ‘likely tobe hazardous or to interfere with the child’seducation, health or physical, mental, spiritual,moral or social development.’

In addition to preventing and respondingto violence committed against children,any care system should ensure thatviolence by children against childrenincluding bullying should be clearlyunderstood to be unacceptable and thatappropriate measures are in place toprevent and respond to such cases.(Article 19, Article 32, Article 34, Article35, Article 36)

International law establishes clearobligations on all those who have responsibilityfor the care and protection of childrenincluding children who are not in the care oftheir parents. These obligations go beyond thefulfilment of the child’s right to life andmaximum survival and development, the rightto health, education, adequate standards ofliving as well as the fundamental right to playand recreation. They articulate the fundamentalapproach which must be taken by any individual,organisation or body that has children in itscare and the responsibility for which they mustbe held accountable. Childcare services bydefinition should therefore be at the forefrontof the delivery of children’s rights and theirresponsibility to each and every individual childin their care should be clearly measurable andaccountable.

Save the Children’s Quality Standards for childcareprovisions

In its work across the globe for theprotection of children, Save the Children hassupported national and local governmentauthorities, individual care givers as well asprofessional welfare associations inunderstanding how best to implementinternational standards for the care of childrenincluding children in alternative care. As partof those efforts, it developed and piloted inEast and Central Africa a simple butcomprehensive framework of QualityStandards for childcare provision includingindicators upon which quality childcare can beassessed and measured. The Quality carestandards are firmly based on the internationalstandards but articulate further what theirimplementation entails. 14

The Quality Care standards were used asthe starting point for developing a morecomprehensive framework to assess the qualityof care in childcare institutions for this researchacross 6 provinces of Indonesia. Together withthe national standards highlighted above, thestandards were developed into a matrix ofquality care and the research tools used toassess what quality care should look like inIndonesia’s childcare institutions. The processof articulating what Quality Care means in theIndonesia context with research teamscomposed of key stakeholders in this process,the Ministry of Social Affairs in particular theChildren’s Services Directorate, the researchand policy planning departments together withsenior social workers and lecturers from theSchools of Social Work was a crucial part ofthe learning process and therefore the researchas it enabled a first and important process fordetermining how international standards inchildcare can and should be made applicable.

As a result the research sought tounderstand and assess the quality of care inthe childcare institutions according to thefollowing framework:


page

48

• Ownership• Type• Number of children• Age of children• Parental status• Home Location• Placement length• Education• Number and type of SDM• Funding sources etc.

• Values underpinning Institutions.• Aims and objectives

• Referral/outreach• Admission/placement• Care planning• Review• Rehabilitation, throughcare and after care• Procedure for children who leave care• Aftercare• Child protection policy• Child protection practice

• Diet/Food• Health• Education• Play and recreation• Children’s work• Privacy• Choice• Dignity• Social Relationships• Children’s sense of identity• Supervision, control and sanctions• Children’s voices• Special needs including babies and young

children

• Recruitment and selection• Supervision and support• Deployment/roles• Professional development and training

• Location and design• Relationship with Community• Accommodation

• Records• Confidentiality• Role of manager, owners• Government supervision and monitoring

I. Profiles ofinstitutions and thechildren

II. Care philosophy ofthe Institutions

III. Professionalpractice

IV. Personal care

V. Staffing

VI. Resources

VII. Administration


page

49

SUMI HAS LIVED in the institution for thelast two years. Her mother (40) is a trash-picker/scavenger in Semarang, while her father(45) doesn’t work. She tends to be quitewithdrawn and introverted. She has threesiblings, one of whom also lives in the childcareinstitution. She says that her younger sibling isalways throwing tantrums. If she wantssomething, she has to get it, or else she will flyinto a rage, sometimes even throwing thingsaround.

Previously, Sumi lived in a pesantren(Islamic boarding school) in Demak (about 1.5hours from Semarang) for 3 years from theage of 12 to 15. She didn’t attend school, butstudied in the pesantren. While her motherworked in Semarang, her two younger siblingslived with her father at the family home inMijen. In Semarang, her mother would getabout Rp 10,000 per day (USD 1) sellingcardboard, newspapers and other things shecollected.

Sumi returned home once per month –sometimes she had no money to go back again.The fare home was Rp 2,000 if she wore heruniform, or Rp 4,000-6,000 if not. When shereturned home from the pesantren, she wouldoften stay there for between three and fivemonths. She would only return to thepesantren if they inquired as to herwhereabouts. The pesantren was quite far away,and the fare could cost up to Rp 10,000 (USD1)

Over the course of her 1 year in Demak,she went home regularly. In the end, she wastold to go home to look after her youngersibling, who was still a baby. After that she wassent to another pesantren in Magetan (about1 hour from Semarang). Even though she was

only in this pesantren for 1.5 years, shecontinuously yearned to return home as shemissed her parents. The cost of transportationto the pesantren was also quite a lot, up to Rp10,000 return (USD 1). So she would go homeonce every one or two months, and then wouldstay at home for between 1 week and 1 month.As in the case of the previous pesantren, thiswas because she did not have enough moneyto return to the pesantren. Rather than askingher father for money, she preferred to stay andlook after her younger sibling. Her father nevertold her to find a job. When first brought tothe childcare institution, she had been told topack her bags by her parents. She didn’t knowshe was going to be brought to a childcareinstitution. Instead she thought she would bebrought back to the pesantren. When she firstentered the childcare institution, she criedcontinuously as she missed home.

The family home was a tumbledown shackmade of boards and with a dirt floor. Waterwas fetched from the well of a neighbour. Now,however, the condition of the family home hasimproved, with the rooms being separated byboard partitions, rather than just clothpartitions as was the case previously. In addition,they acquired mattresses 5 months ago. Theboards were obtained by Sumi’s mother as partof her scavenging work in Semarang. Her fatheroften gets angry and shouts at people whoupset him. He also used to work as a trash-picker/scavenger, but doesn’t want to work anymore, it is not known why. The food at homeis whatever’s available on the day. Before, ifthere was no rice, they would eat yams, orthey would just go without. Her little siblingused to eat at her grandma’s house. But hehasn’t done this for the last three years asthey’re better off now.

LIFE STORY:

Sumi, 17, Grade 2 Junior High School, (CENTRAL JAVA)


page

50

Sumi wants to become a domestic helperin Semarang or Jakarta so as to be able to helpher parents financially, or to set up a small storeat home. But her parents “won’t allow it”. Manyof her friends have encouraged her to find a

job. She is willing to do so provided that she isoffered a job that she can do while attendingschool, such as washing clothes or moppingthe floors in people’s houses.

Footnotes:1 UN CRC Preambule2 Article 18, UN CRC3 Article 9, UN CRC4 1986 Declaration on Social and Legal Principles relating to the Protection and Welfare of Children, with Special

Reference to Foster Placement and Adoption Nationally and Internationally. A/41/898, Article 4.5 On the importance of family based care and the impact of institutionalisation of children see, Save the Children

(2003) A Last Resort: The growing concern about children in Residential care and for further resources online go toThe Better Care Network at: www.bettercarenetwork.org

6 Committee on the Rights of the Child: Recommendations on Children without Parental Care (2005) CRC/C/156.Para 644.

7 Committee on the Rights of the Child: Recommendations on Children without Parental Care (2005) CRC/C/156.Para 666.

8 CRC Article 27: child’s right to an adequate standard of living.9 Committee on the Rights of the Child: Recommendations on Children without Parental Care (2005) CRC/C/156.

Para 659.10 United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty, Rule 11 (b).11 For the Draft UN guidelines on the Appropriate Use and Conditions of Alternative Care for Children See: http://

www.crin.org/docs/DRAFT_UN_Guidelines.pdf

12 Committee on the Rights of the Child General Comment No 8: The right of the child to protection from corporalpunishment and other cruel or degrading forms of punishment. CRC/C/GC/8 (2006)

13 Committee on the Rights of the Child: Recommendations on Children without Parental Care (2005) CRC/C/156.Para 684. ‘The Committee recommends that the States parties establish an independent and effective monitoringmechanism for children without parental care. Such a body should have a mandate to receive, investigate andaddress complaints from children and do so in a childsensitive and expeditious manner.’

14 Save the Children UK (2005): Raising the Standards: Quality Childcare Provision in East and Central Africa and D.Swales (2006): Applying the Standards-improving quality child care provision in East and Central Africa. Save theChildren UK.

“Someone That Matters” | VI. Characteristics of the 6 Provinces

page

51

VI. Characteristics of the 6Provinces

THIS RESEARCH WAS carried out in 6 provinces of Indonesia: Aceh (NAD), Maluku, CentralJava, West Nusa Tenggara (NTB), West Kalimantan and North Sulawesi. Indonesia is made up of33 Provinces and extends over 17,000 islands across the archipelago. Its latest population estimatefor 2006 is 223 million people. 1

The definition of a child under Indonesian law is a person under the age of 18 years asstipulated in the Child Protection Law No 23 (2002). Unfortunately the National Department ofStatistics has used for its demographic census age groups that include 19 years old instead ofusing the Child Protection Law definition. As a result, the actual number of children in Indonesiais not known. Data collected on Education in Indonesia (Education Statistics 2003, BPS) come alittle closer to the lawful definition of a child but still includes 18 years old. Nevertheless, we cansee from this data that the number of people in Indonesia up to and including 18 years of age is


page

52

over 80.5 million or 38% of the total populationof Indonesia. The Table below providescomparison of the population aged 0-18 yearsin the 6 provinces included in this research.

This data indicates that the percentage ofchildren in the 6 provinces is between a thirdto almost half the total population with Malukuhaving a significantly higher percentage ofchildren and young adults at 44% while NorthSulawesi has the lowest with 34%.

Another key aspect of the situation ofchildren and young people in those 6 provincesrelates to their educational status. Thefollowing Table provides a breakdown of NetEnrolment Rate (NER) 2 according to genderand level of education at Elementary Schoolor SD (7 – 12 years), Junior High School orSLTP (13-15 years) and Senior High School orSLTA (16-18 years) (BPS, 2003: 14).

This data reflects the relatively highpercentage of children across Indonesia whoare deemed to be accessing elementary schoollevel (SD) reaching 92.55% and the fact thatrates of enrolment at that level are very similarfor both boys and girls.3 In that regard childrenin the six Provinces surveyed also fared quitewell with Aceh and Central Java above thenational average and NTB and Maluku justbelow it. West Kalimantan and NorthSulawesi , on the other hand, scoredsignificantly lower than the other provinces interms of elementary enrolment with less than

90% of both girls and boys accessingelementary education.

Enrolment rates in Aceh continue to bewell above the national average with 78.74%

of children enrolled in junior high school witha higher number of girls at school at that level.North Sulawesi is also doing better than theother Provinces with 68.33% of Junior HighSchool enrolled at that level. Interestingly ithas almost 10% more girls enrolled at that levelthan boys.

Central Java is also above the nationalaverage with 66.61% enrolled at that level withslightly more girls. While Maluku is hoveringunder the national average with only 62.59%enrolled, NTB and in particular WestKalimantan are faring much worst with only57.19% for NTB and a very low 50.88% forWest Kalimantan. Worth noting is also the factthat in NTB, there are significantly more boysenrolled at school at that level than girls, almost6% more.

At senior high school level, the nationalenrolment rate drops again very significantlywith only 40.56% of 16-18 years old accessinghigh school education. Again, Aceh faresbetter despite also recording a drop with61.63% of children enrolled. North Sulawesiis also doing slightly better than the nationalaverage with 44.42% enrolled. Again in thatProvince girls are doing better in terms of NetEnrolment with 8% more girls at senior high

Table 2 Population breakdown for the 0 - 18 years of age in the 6 Provinces. 2003

(in thousands) Urban and Rural

Province Number of people 0-18 Population Percentage

Aceh (NAD) 1,759.4 4,213.8 42%Central Java 11,466.7 32,052.8 36%NTB 1,692.1 4,005.2 42%West Kalimantan 1,657.4 3,947.7 42%North Sulawesi 720.7 2,127.8 34%Maluku 537.2 1,217.5 44%

Total 17,833.5 47,564.8 37%

Indonesia 80,597.0 214,374.1 38%Source: BPS, Statistics of Education 2003, National Social-Economic Survey


page

53

school than boys. Maluku is also doing betterin terms of senior high school enrolment ratesand is above national level with 43.53%. This issurprising as it was below the national averagefor both elementary and junior high schoollevel. It may be that more children are stayingat school until senior high school than in otherProvinces. It is interesting to note in that regardthat it records about 4% more boys enrolledat that level than girls. Central Java recordsthis time a significant drop from its abovenational average enrolment rate for elementaryand junior high school. It is below the nationalaverage for enrolment at senior high school at38.29%. It is NTB and West Kalimantanagain that record the lowest enrolment rateswith respectively 33.45% for NTB and only

29.11% of 16-18 years old in senior high schoolin West Kalimantan. With the achievement only29.11%, West Kalimantan with Gorontalo(24.68) and East Nusa Tenggara (23.57) placedthe worst position of all provinces in seniorhigh school level.

Across the three levels it is clear that Acehfares much better than any of the otherprovinces in terms of school enrolment ratesand girls in that province do better at all levels.While Central Java does well at elementaryand junior high school levels compared to thenational average, it drops below for senior highschool. North Sulawesi does poorly atelementary level but on the other hand doesbetter at both junior and senior high schoollevels. Maluku is below the national level for

Net Enrolment Rates by 6 Provinces and sex Year 2003

Provinces Primary school Junior High School General/VocationalSenior High School

Aceh (NAD) 95.36 78.74 61.63Male 94.89 77.74 60.84Female 95.91 79.87 62.42

Central Java 93.70 66.61 38.29Male 93.79 64.67 38.04Female 93.60 68.75 38.57

NTB 92.48 57.19 33.45Male 93.24 60.02 33.67Female 91.72 54.18 33.22

West Kalimantan 88.89 50.88 29.11Male 89.24 50.00 28.69Female 88.49 51.82 29.55

North Sulawesi 89.18 68.33 44.42Male 89.95 63.81 40.13Female 88.26 73.09 48.86

Maluku 91.03 62.59 43.53Male 90.23 61.88 45.53Female 91.95 63.33 41.15

Indonesia 92.55 63.49 40.56Male 92.49 62.60 40.48Female 92.61 64.46 40.64

Source: BPS, Statistics of Education 2003, National Social-Economic Survey

Table 3 Net Enrolment Rates by 6 Provinces and according to Sex Year 2003.


page

54

both elementary and junior high school levelsbut surprisingly does better in terms ofenrolment for senior high school. NTB onthe other hand remains below the nationalaverage at each education level while WestKalimantan is at the bottom of the scale, faringthe among the six provinces in all threecategories.

As we have seen in the context of policiesregarding neglected children and the provisionof institutional care, poverty is seen as a keycriteria and one of the primary reason givenfor the provision of residential care for children.Poverty remains a key challenge for Indonesiawith 17% of Indonesians living under thepoverty line.4 In the six provinces selectedpoverty figures are also important to considerin the context of understanding the provisionof institutional care. The following Table shows

the percentage of the population in eachProvince that was identified as poor in 2004.

The above data shows that the percentageof people who are identified as poor is stillrelatively high in Aceh, Maluku, NTB andCentral Java. In North Sulawesi and WestKalimantan, the figures were significantly lowerat around 10%. Maluku is particularly high with32% of its population identified as ‘poor’.Another picture and somewhat differentpicture of poverty in the six provinces isprovided by the Human Poverty Index HPI(IKM) which is compiled by the NationalStatistical Office (BPS), the National Planningand Development Agency (Bappenas) and

UNDP. The Human Poverty Index uses differentvariables for measuring poverty including lifespan, literacy, access to clean water and heathas well as levels of children who areundernourished.

The picture provided by this data revealsthe more complex differences between these6 provinces and the diversity of challenges theyface which cannot be simply reduced orexplained by the percentage of poor people ineach province.

Under the Human Poverty Index NorthSulawesi and Central Java score relatively highin 4th and 6th position respectively out of the30 Provinces assessed. Maluku is also andsurprisingly relatively well placed under theseindicators in 10th while in terms of thepercentage of the poor under the BPS dataabove it recorded very high levels.

West Kalimantan on the other hand ranksas the lowest of all of the 30 Indonesianprovinces. NTB and Aceh also rank particularlylow in 26th and 23rd position. This data providesquite a different picture than that given by thedata collected by BPS on the number andpercentage of poor people in each province.In particular Maluku and Central Java whosepercentage of poor people was identified asquite high under the BPS data score muchbetter when the HPI variable are used.

The breakdown under the Human PovertyIndex provides a more complex and variedpicture of the situation in the 6 provinces.

Table 4 Number and Percentage of Poor People in the 6 Provinces in 2004

Source: *) BPS, Statistical Yearbook of Indonesia, 2004**) BPS, 2004: Data and Information on Poverty 2004

Aceh (NAD) 4,089 1,157.2 28Central Java 32,543 6,843.8 21NTB 4,084 1,031.6 25West Kalimantan 4,033 558.2 14North Sulawesi 2,159 192.2 9Maluku 1,244 397.6 32

Number of PoorPeople (000)**)

Province Number ofpopulation (000)*

Percentage ofPoor People (%)


page

55

l West Kalimantan rates very poorly interms of access to clean water (78% of itspopulation are said not to have access toclean water) and 50% of its population donot have access to health services. The dataalso shows that the situation has actuallyworsened in relation to both between1999 and 2002. Meanwhile the lifeexpectancy of its population is also quitelow compared with the Indonesian averageone with 18% of its population notexpected to live beyond 40.

l West Nusa Tenggara (NTB) scoresextremely low in terms of life expectancyafter 40 with almost 30% of its populationnot expected to live beyond 40 years ofage. It also has very high level of illiteracywith 22% of its adult population unable toread or write. Access to clean water andlevels of nutrition for the under 5s werealso low in NTB with 52% of thepopulation not accessing clean water and38% children under 5 who areundernourished.

l Data on Aceh point to particularly pooraccess to clean water and health services

with 48% of its population not accessingclean water and 38% percent not accessinghealth facilities. The levels of children under5 being undernourished were also veryhigh at 35%. On the other hand Acehshows high level of adult literacy with only4% of its adult population being illiterate.This confirms the data pointing to Aceh’svery high level of school enrolment.

l Maluku meanwhile is also showing highlevel of literacy as can be expected fromthe high level of school enrolment withjust under 4% of its adult populationunable to read or write. It has alsorelatively good access to clean watercompared to the national average with44% of people not accessing clean waterin Maluku compared to 45% under thenational average. It has slightly low levelsof access to health services with 26% ofits population not accessing those andslightly higher levels of children under 5who are undernourished at 29% comparedto 25% as the national average.

l Central Java provides also a complexpicture. While it has higher levels of adult

1999 2002 1999 2002 1999 2002 1999 2002 1999 2002 1999 2002 1999 2002

12,7 12,6 6,9 4,2 61,5 48,5 37,6 38,0 35,6 35,2 31,4 28,4 23 23

11,7 10,9 15,2 14,3 47,8 39,8 17,1 20,9 30,5 25,0 23,2 21,0 7 6

31,5 27,3 27,2 22,2 62,5 52,3 17,5 21,6 39,7 37,8 33,7 30,2 25 26

18,6 18,1 16,8 13,1 78,4 78,5 43,3 50,1 42,0 33,2 38,7 38,0 26 30

12,0 8,4 2,8 1,2 44,5 35,7 26,1 18,4 25,8 21,9 22,7 17,8 5 4

13,1 16,2 4,2 3,7 52,1 43,9 23,8 26,1 29,3 29,3 24,7 22,9 12 10

15,2 15,0 11,6 10,5 51,9 44,8 21,6 23,1 30,0 25,8 25,2 22,7 - -

Province

Year

Aceh (NAD)

Central Java

NTB

West Kalimantan

North Sulawesi

Maluku

Indonesia

People notexpected tosurvive toage 40 (%)

Adultilliteracyrate (%)

Populationwithout

access toclean water

(%)

Populationwithout

access tohealth

facilities (%)

Under-nourishedchildren

under age 5(%)

HPI (IKM) HPI (IKM)Ranking

Source: BPS, Bappenas, UNDP, National Human Development Report, Year 2004

Table 5 Human Poverty Index for the 6 Provinces and Indonesia


page

56

illiteracy (14%) compared to the nationallevel (10%) and the level of children under5 who are undernourished (25%) is aboutthe national average (26%), it is doingbetter than other Provinces in terms ofthe other indicators.

l North Sulawesi as could be expectedfrom the education data is showing verystrong literacy levels with only 1.2% of itsadult population unable to read or writewhich is not only the highest between thesix provinces but across all of theprovinces assessed. It has the highest lifeexpectancy above 40 for the six provincesand his 3rd nationally. It has significantlyimproved its access to health servicesbetween 1999 and 2003 reducing thosepeople without access from 26% to 18%.It has the lowest percentage of peoplewithout access to clean water althoughwhile it is below the national average itstill means that 45% of its population doesnot have access to clean water.

In 2004, according to DEPSOS, there were3,308,642 neglected children in the whole ofIndonesia. The breakdown per provinces interms of the number of children deemedneglected in the 6 Provinces and the numberof neglected children who accessed the BBMsubsidy through the childcare institutions orwere targeted for assistance under the Dekonis as follows:

The data highlights a clear gap betweenthe considerable number of children who aredeemed ‘neglected’ by DEPSOS and thenumber of children who are actually targetedor in receipt of government assistance throughthe BBM subsidy or the Dekon Fund withinthe six provinces.

The Dekon Fund for neglected childrenprovided by DEPSOS in 2006 to the 6Provincial Governments was as follows:

Aceh (NAD): USD 478,000Central Java: USD 275,000NTB: USD 311,000West Kalimantan: USD 278,000North Sulawesi: USD 333,000Maluku: USD 394,000

This represented an average of USD 146per child targeted per year. Whether themoney was actually spent according to thenumber of targeted children is not known asonly a few Provinces actually report on howthe money has been spent.

Some of the Deconcentration Fund is usedto support childcare institutions withoperational costs including administrative,infrastructure or education costs. Outside ofthis the Dekon is mainly used to providesupport for micro enterprise (Usaha EkonomiProduktif UEP) for children. This assistance isprovided to groups of children who havedropped out of schools or who are identifiedas neglected to encourage them to develop a

Aceh (NAD) 40,106 8,758 2,480 28%Central Java 214,949 11,675 2,990 6%NTB 160,321 6,015 2,540 5%West Kalimantan 105,714 2,554 2,320 5%North Sulawesi 70,183 1,537 2,420 6%Maluku 12,789 1,017 2,860 30%Total 604,062 31,556 15,610 8%

Source: Depsos, 2004

ProvinceNumber ofNeglectedChildren

Number ofneglected

children whoaccessed theBBM Subsidy

Number ofneglectedchildren

targeted underthe Dekon

Percentage ofneglectedchildrenreached

Table 6 Number of Neglected Children according to DEPSOS, and numbers who received orwere targeted for DEPSOS assistance in 2004 in the 6 Provinces.


page

57

small business initiative. In West Kalimantan forexample, the Dekon was used to provide 51‘small business packages’ for 600 children ofbetween 16-18 years of age in 10 districts. Thepackages relate to the establishment of smallbusinesses selling basic householdcommodities, ice-making business, sellinggasoline, making and selling cakes, raisinglivestock including cows, goats and ducks, theproduction of flour, compost and othergardening tools, mechanical repair, rubbertapping and the renting of play station.

In NTB, the small enterprise assistance waschannelled through 214 small ’businesspackages’ which were distributed to groups of1,200 neglected children. The small enterprisesincluded small business selling rice, sugar, oil,salt and other household commodities, therearing of livestock, and mechanical repairshops.

It is clear from the data available from the6 Provinces that both the BBM subsidy andthe Deconcentration Fund will only ever reacha small number of the children that have beenidentified as neglected. Neither programme isever likely to be able to support the vastmajority of those children nor is it clear whataspect of their ‘neglect’ they are seeking toaddress beyond general poverty level. TheHuman Poverty Index data from the sixprovinces highlights clearly that the percentageof population that is poor in a Province is initself not necessarily a determinant for lack ofaccess to education, access to health or otherkey requirements for adequate quality of life.Maluku, for example, has a high level of adultliteracy and school enrolment. If poverty wasthe primary factor in hampering access toeducation then we would expect that theProvince would fare much worst in terms ofliteracy.

This is particularly important to considerin a context where childcare institutions areprimarily seen as a means to access educationas we will see in this report.

Equally, if the percentage of poor peoplewithin a particular Province is a keydeterminant for the provision of residentialcare for children then Maluku should have a

much higher number of institutions under itsjurisdiction. As we have seen, in fact it comesbelow the national average under the BBM datain terms of number of childcare institutionsper population.

North Sulawesi on the other hand is doingvery well on all counts in terms of the HumanPoverty Index and yet it has a higherpercentage of childcare institutions per personthan either Maluku or Central Java. Clearlypoverty is not the only determinant factor here.In addition, West Kalimantan which rates worstof all under the Human Poverty Index onlyhas a slighter higher number of institutions perpopulation than the national average and trailswell behind Aceh and NTB in that regard whichhead the top of the list in terms of number ofsuch institutions per head of population.

In this context there is an urgent need toreview the concept of ‘neglected children’ toassess properly what issues these childrenreally face beyond a broad concept of povertyand whether these can or even should besolved through placement in institutional careor through the provision of small businessgrants. The approach taken so far by theGovernment at central and local levels tosupport these children need to be reviewed inorder to assess whether it is appropriate,strategic and even an effective way of doing so.

In addition to demographic and economicfactors, each of the Province has a very specificsocial and cultural context, including in 4Provinces a history of conflict or disaster, thatneed to be taken into account in order tounderstand the context in which the childcareinstitutions are operating.

Aceh (Nanggroe Aceh DarussalamNAD) is the northernmost Province on thecoast of Sumatera Island. Its population isalmost exclusively Muslim and as a Province ithas received special autonomy status followingthe signing of a Peace Agreement in 2005 whichput an end to over 30 years of conflict. InDecember 2004, it was devastated by a majorearthquake and tsunami in the Indian Oceanwhich killed over 150,000 and displaced more


page

58

than 500,000 people. Aceh’s population isoverwhelmingly Muslim and the Shariah lawhas been applied since autonomy. Theseinstitutions have flourished in the last coupleof decades in Aceh. The status of orphans andfatherless children in Islam has played animportant role in the establishment of childcareinstitutions in Aceh both by the communityand by religious organisations. Childcareinstitutions have taken on a particularlyprominent role as the result of the conflictand more recently, as a result of the earthquakeand tsunami that devastated great parts of it.These two major events became importantpush factors for the placement of children ininstitutional care whether as a result of theloss of a parent or separation or as a result ofthe impact of these events on the capacity offamilies to care for their children.

Save the Children and DEPSOS (2006)carried a survey of childcare institutions in thepost tsunami context which showed that over2500 child victims of the tsunami were placedin residential care within a year of that disaster.While the research did not look specifically atvictims of the conflict it also identified over1300 children that were deemed to haveentered residential care as a result of thatconflict. The research, however, also found thatthe conflict and the tsunami seemed to havemerely compounded an existing trend towardsa proliferation of childcare institutions in theProvince. The number of childcare institutionshad already more than tripled within a ten yearperiod (1990-2000). The data also showed that,should the rate of institutions established since2000 and particularly since the 2004 tsunamicontinue, the number of childcare institutionsin that Province is likely to double again withinthis decade. In that regard the research alsofound that the financial assistance provided tothe childcare institutions through the BBMsubsidy, the Deconcentration Fund, thesubstantive cash injection through theReconstruction and Rehabilitation Agency(BBR), as well as the assistance provided bynational and international organisations playeda significant role in compounding that trend.

One characteristic of the childcareinstitutions in Aceh is their establishment

together with an Islamic Boarding School, calleda Dayah in Aceh or a Pesantren in otherprovinces. To send one’s children to schoolthrough a Dayah is a well established traditionin the Acehnese community. Education throughthe Dayah is provided either throughtraditional Dayah (salafiyah) which provideexclusively religious education or through theModern Dayah that provide formal educationthat follows the national curriculum as well asreligious education. Establishing a childcareinstitution whether as part of a Dayah orindependently is a means of ensuring accessto education for those children from familiesthat are particularly vulnerable or cannot affordeducation for their children. This approach thatsees a childcare institution combined with orlinked to an Islamic boarding school was foundnot only in Aceh though but also in otherProvinces such as NTB, Central Java, Malukuand West Kalimantan.

West Nusa Tenggara (NTB) is aProvince where the majority of its populationfollows Islam (93%). There are however alsoother faiths being practised including Hindu(3.15%), Catholic (2.24%), Buddhist (1.21%) andProtestant (0.25%) The Province includes twomajor islands, Lombok and Sumbawa. It isrelatively densely populated with an averageof 200 residents per square kilometre. Asindicated by the Human Poverty Indicators,NTB ranks quite low in terms of developmentindicators. The main Islamic Organisation inNTB is Nahdatul Wathon which runs a numberof Islamic boarding schools combined withchildcare institutions in order to subsidize theeducation of children who cannot afford it.

NTB also represents an example of acommunity that is in the process of changing.On the one hand, Islamic values and traditionalvalues from the Sasak ethnic group which isthe main indigenous people in NTB remainvery strong. On the other hand, the Provinceis increasingly exposed to other cultures andvalues. Lombok in particular has become a bigtourist destination. Different categories ofchildcare institutions can be identified in thatcontext. First of all there are childcareinstitutions that are based on the pesantrenmodel and apply a strong religious approach


page

59

that includes replacing Sasak Culture withIslamic symbols and with values that aredeemed more ‘international’. This includesrequiring the use of Arabic, English andMandarin languages. Secondly, there arechildcare institutions that also follow thepesantren model but with a more traditionalistapproach. Thirdly, there are childcareinstitutions that are run by religiousorganisations from the Christian and Hindufaiths and who provide for both religious andformal education while also enabling somespace for the expression of local identity andculture. Fourthly, there is the childcareinstitution which is run by the government andwhich takes on a ‘nationalist’ approach intheory although in practice it is focused onIslam and serves the Muslim community.

Central Java is one of Indonesia’s mostdensly populated Provinces with more than 900residents per square kilometer. It includesalmost 15% of the total population of Indonesia.It is predominently Muslim with 96.8% of itspopulation following Islam, 1.6% of Protestants,1.2% of Catholics, 0.2% of Buddhists and 0.1%of Hindu. As a Province of the Island of Java,Central Java is one of the main agriculturalproducers in the country and is the centre ofJavanese culture and heritage. As a Provincethat is experiencing fast changes, Central Javais also facing a range of child protection issuesincluding child work, street children and childtrafficking.

North Sulawesi is a predominantlyChristian province with 63.7% of Protestantsand 6% of Catholics. It also has a sizeableMuslim population (28%) and small Hindu(1.3%) and Buddhist (0.6%) communities.Stretching towards the Philippines, its capitalManado is a major commercial and touristcenter. It is one of the key sending areas forchild trafficking and commercial sexualexploitation in Indonesia. North Sulawesi hasno history of inter-communal conflict, unlikeCentral Sulwesi.

Maluku is one of Indonesia’s mostpluralistic Provinces composed of over 550Islands across over 580,000 square kilometres.

Its bigger islands are Ambon, Seram and Buru.It has only 26 residents per square kilometrebut with almost 90% of its territory in the sea,its land mass can be densely populated and itscapital Ambon has almost 700 residents persquare kilometre. 52% of its population isChristian with 43% Protestants and over 8%that are Catholics. 47% of its population isMuslim with small communities of Buddhists(0.10%), Hindu (0.07%) and other faiths orbeliefs (0.67%). Maluku was torn by inter-communal conflict from 1999 to 2004. Whilethe conflict has sometimes been portrayed asa religious conflict, the reality is far morecomplex with a range of issues coming intoplay including traditional rivalries, economiccompetition, an ill conceived transmigrationpolicy and political manipulation andmismanagement. As a result, an estimated 8000lives were lost and 4000 people injured in inter-community violence which manifested itselfalong religious lines between Christians andMuslims.5 Almost 700,000 people wereestimated to have been displaced from theirhomes and communities.

Maluku’s traditional focus on family basedcare and the role of families in caring for theirvulnerable members seems to have remainedvery strong despite the conflict. People fromMaluku refer to it as “matarumah” which refersto the fact that the extended family is requiredto take over the care of the children if theirparents are unable or fail to care for them.While there were institutions set up specificallyto care for children affected by the conflict,there remains a relatively small number ofchildcare institutions in Maluku and thereluctance of families to place their children incare no matter how difficult theircircumstances was often referred to in thiscontext.

West Kalimantan is a Province on theIndonesian part of the Island of Borneo whichis stretches across over 120,000 squarekilometres. It has the lowest population densityfrom the 6 provinces with 27 residents persquare kilometre taking into account the factthat unlike Maluku almost all of its territory island based.


page

60

Its indigenous population is made up ofthe Dayaks, a term used to include over 200ethnic sub-groups indigenous to Borneoincluding in West Kalimantan the KanayatanDayak, the Iban Dayak and the Taman Dayak.6

The Dayak are thought to constitute 41% ofthe West Kalimantan population while theMalays constitute 37% and the Chinese 11%.Other ethnic groups such as the Bugis, Javanese,Bataks and Madurese have also settled ormoved there some as a result of theGovernment’s transmigration programme. Thetransmigration programme between 1980 and1985 alone resulted in a 400% increase inpopulation in West Kalimantan within that 5year period. As a result it is not surprisingthat the population of West Kalimantan isconsidered to be particularly heterogenic.

The Dayak populations tend to live in thehinterland of Kalimantan and are primarilyengaged in agricultural and hunting activities,often remaining in traditional communitiesliving within the forest environment. TheMalays and Chinese on the other hand tendto live along the coastal areas, the Malaysgenerally involved in agriculture, fishing andtrading while the Chinese are generally involvedin trade. While the Dayak population wasthought to be predominantly animist,concerted efforts at conversion by the mainreligious groups has meant that the populationof West Kalimantan is now composed of 57%Muslim, 34% Christian including 24.1% ofCatholics and 10% of Protestants, 6.4% ofBuddhist, 0.2% Hindu and others 1.7%.Members of the Dayak population that haveconverted to Islam are deemed to havebecome ‘Malays’ (Melayu).

While only constituting 3% of thepopulation, the Madurese ethnic group held aparticularly strong economic position in WestKalimantan. Historically there had been a seriesof conflicts and incidents between Madureseand the other main ethnic groups in theprovince including a previous conflict with theDayaks around the 1950s, with the Chinesecommunity in the 1960s and finally with theMalay ethnic group in 1999.

In 1999, a bloody conflict broke out inSambas between the Madurese on one sideand the Dayak and Malay from Sambas on theother. Resulting from a long history of incidentsbetween the various sides and triggered by thekillings of Malays by Madurese on the day ofthe Idul Fitri celebration, it led to the death ofmany people and the displacement of over12,000 people, including the forced expulsionin March 1999 of all ethnic Madurese fromSambas.7

The ethnic diversity of West Kalimantanand the history of conflict in that Province haveinfluenced the way childcare institutions havedeveloped and operated. If previouslyMadurese children had been mixed withchildren from other ethnic groups in particularMalays, the situation changed totally after 1999.While both ethnic Malay and Madurese sharethe same religion, Islam, their children couldnot be put together in an institution eventhough both had been victims of the conflict.The childcare institutions run by Islamicorganisations became ethnically segregated asa result. There are also institutions that focusparticularly on caring for Dayak children eitherwith a focus on Christianity for those familiesthat have converted or those that haveconverted to Islam and as a result are deemedto have become “Malays”. “The Malay ethnicgroup is like ‘the other side of the coin’ as far asthe Dayaks are concerned, because if a Dayakembraces Islam, automatically he will be consideredas being part of the Malay group.” 8 An ethnicmix of children was attempted by theGovernment institution in West Kalimantan butonly succeeded in recruiting children from theMalay, Dayak and Javanese ethnic groups butno ethnic Madurese. Interestingly somechildcare institutions have focused on caringexclusively for Madurese children includingthose affected by the conflict. There are alsoinstitutions in West Kalimantan which havefocused on the children of ethnic Javanese whowere brought in as part of the transmigrationprogramme and are living in Sangguledo withinparticular poor communities.


page

61

Footnotes:1 World Development Indicators Database April 2007. World Bank2 NER is the percentage of certain school age-group population enrolled at a certain education level. (Ministry of

National Education, 2002: 122-123).3 Enrolement figures in Indonesia should be treated with caution and they do not reflect attendance or completion

rates.4 SUSENAS 2004. The poverty line is defined by SUSENAS as less than IDR 143,458 per capita per month (16

USD) for the urban population and IDR 108,725 per capita per month (12USD) for the rural population. The WorldBank gives a slightly higher figure of 18% living under the poverty line for 2006 (Indonesia at a glance, http://siteresources.worldbank.org/)

5 The Effects of Inter-communal Tension, Violence and Dislocation on Children’s Lives: A child facilitated Peerconsultation., AusAID and Save the Children (2006)

6 Ibid. p. 159 and interview with Dayak children placed in institution7 Sukamdi, Setiadi and Sembiring (2002): Forced internal displacement: the Madurese in West Kalimantan, Indonesia.

Ford Foundation8 Syarief I Alqadrie. 1987. Cultural Differences and Social Life Among Three Ethnic Groups in West Kalimantan.

Tesis Master. University of Kentucky, Lexington. Dikutip oleh Riza Sihbudi dan Moch. Nurhasim. 2001. KerusuhanSosial di Indonesia. Grasindo, Jakarta hal. 160.


page

62

“Someone That Matters” | VII. Profiles of the institutions assessed and the children in their care

page

63

VII. Profiles of the institutionsassessed and the children intheir care

THIS SECTION provides an overall picture of the childcare institutions that were assessedunder this research and of the children in their care.

The institutions

The 36 institutions were chosen so that they would represent the very diverse situation ofchildcare institutions across Indonesia. 6 institutions were chosen per province to reflect anumber of key factors such as whether they are government or privately owned, the nature andrange of its founding organisation, the religious or social values that underpin the institution,whether they are caring for a very high number or a relatively small number of children, whetherthey are caring for both boys or girls or are single sex, as well as the approach taken to care andthe delivery of their services. Care was taken however to reflect also the diversity in residential


page

64

care approaches within a particular faith. Thereis, for example, a real diversity of approacheswithin childcare institutions established byIslamic organisations.

Ownership status

The ownership status of the childcareinstitutions that were selected reflected bothgovernment run institutions and privately runorganisation. The government institutionsconsists of institutions that are owned eitherby the Provincial or the District Government.As we have seen DEPSOS also owns and runs3 childcare institutions in the country. Theresearch assessed separately one of them, PantiTunas Bangsa in Pati, Central Java. As it is usedas a model by DEPSOS, this assessement andthe findings were used to support comparaisonwith the other childcare institions rather thanas part of the selected group. (See section XIV)

Privately owned chilcare institutionsinclude those that have been established bynon governmental organisations, including faithbased organisations, social foundations,community groups and internationalorganisations. The breakdown of ownershipstatus for the 36 childcare institutions assessedis as follows:

As can be seen from the above Graph, 78%of the childcare institutions assessed areprivately owned (28) while 22% areGovernment owned (5 by the ProvincialGovernment and 3 by the District/MunicipalGovernment). As we have seen, in practicethe Government owns and runs a very smallfraction of the childcare institutions inIndonesia (less than 1%) but it was feltimportant to provide a picture of the differenttypes of government owned institutions.

3 institutions are run by the District levelGovernment, two in Aceh (Nirmala in BandaAceh and Suci Hati in Aceh Barat), and one inNorth Sulawesi, (Lohoraung, in Sanghie Island).5 institutions are run by the ProvincialGovernment, Pamardi Utomo for boys andWiro Wiloso for girls in Central Java, Harapanin West Nusa Tenggara (NTB), UPRS in WestKalimantan and Huke Ina in Maluku. Theseinstitutions are quite representative of therange of childcare institutions run by theGovernment both in terms of the services theyprovide, their size and also their relationshipsto the various levels of government.

Out of the 8 government institutions, twoinstitutions are facing particular challenges interms of their relationship and status withinthe Government framework which are worthnoting:

l Huke Ina in Buru Island in Maluku provincewas established in 1982. Beforedecentralisation it was owned and run byDEPSOS. It is now under the ProvincialGovernment. However the ProvincialAuthority is trying to hand over Huke Inato the District authority in Buru. Thisprocess of handing over is presently beingconsidered by the District Assembly inBuru. Since regional autonomy, the statusof the staff of Huke Ina who are civilservants has been changed to that ofDistrict level civil servants. However asthe transfer of the institution to theDistrict authority has not yet beenfinalised, there is a real lack of clarity aboutthe management and responsibility for theinstitution. The head of the institution isonly acting as head on the basis of a

Graph 2. Ownership Statusof the childcare institutions


page

65

provinicial level decision of 2006 while onthe other hand no District level decisionand appointments have been made.

l In terms of its status, Lohoraung is also achildcare institution owned and run by theDistrict Government of the Island ofSanghie in Sulawesi Utara. A number ofdecisions by the District administration,including the local office of Social Welfarein Sanghie, confirms this. The appointmentof the Head of the institution was donethrough an official letter of the Bupati (theHead of the District). Unlike othergovernment institutions though, none ofthe staff are civil servants and the fundsreceived from the District Administrationfrom 2004-2006 were limited to a totalof 150 USD per month for 20 children.

The childcare institutions owned byprivate organisations constituted the majorityof the institutions selected for this research.Out of the 28 private institutions selected, 25were owned and run by faith basedorganisations, reflecting the fact that the greatmajority of childcare institutions in Indonesiaare established by faith based organisations.

The Table below provides a breakdownof the institutions according to the religiousdenomination of its parent organisation. 16 ofthe institutions were established by Islamicorganisations, 4 by Protestant organisations, 3by Catholic organisations, 1 by a Hinduorganisation and also 1 by a Buddhistorganisation.

The fact that a majority of Islamic runinstitutions were selected not only reflects thatthe great majority of Indonesians follow theMuslim faith but also to ensure that the greatdiversity of approaches and ways of operatingby these institutions is assessed in this research.

Out of the 16 Islamic based childcareinstitutions:

l 3 were run under the Muhammadiyahnetwork: Muhammadiyah Lhoksemawe andMuhammadiyah Meulaboh in Aceh as wellas Muhammadiyah Cilacap in Central Java.

l 2 were affiliated to the Nahdatul Ulamanetwork (NU): Darurrokhmah in Central

Java and Darul Ulum Al Munawarrah inAceh.

l 3 are affiliated under the Nahdatul Wathon(NW): Darul Hikmah and Al Ikhlas in NTB.Darul Aitam also in NTB is directly under NW.

l 2 under the Hidayatullah network:Hidayatullah Liang in Maluku and AlMuthadien in North Sulawesi.

Muhammadiyah, NU, and Hidayatullah arenational level organizations that have apresence and childcare institutions in almostall provinces. Nahdatul Wathon which firstoperated primarily in NTB is now expandingto other Provinces.

6 other childcare institutions were alsorun by Islamic based organisations but operatelocally and are not affiliated to the otherorganisations.

These are: Al Ummah in Aceh; Al Amin, NurIlahi and Ibnu Taimiyah in West Kalimantan; AlHidayah and Nurul Ikhlas in Maluku.

As we will see later in this report, it isimportant to note that while the 16 childcareinstitutions were clearly set up by Islamicorganisations, this did not mean that otherinstitutions including government ones werenot also based on Islamic values and practice.For example, Nirmala and Suci Hati in Aceh areclearly based on Islam and serving the Muslimcommunities.

The 4 childcare institutions established byProtestant organisations are:

l Eben Haezer in West Kalimantanl Dorkas in North Sulawesil Caleb House in Malukul Patmos in NTB

While Caleb House was established by aProtestant organisation and its approach andvalues are rooted in that faith, it also has aspecific focus on children who were affectedby the inter-communal conflict in Maluku. Itwas established by a local foundation, YayasanPenabur, which worked specifically to provideassistance to children and families from theChristian communities in the aftermath of theinter-communal conflict in Maluku. TheFoundation’s work focused on providing


page

66

support to children and their families directlyin their communities. In 2003, however, itdecided to establish a childcare institution inAmbon as it felt that some of the children hadexperienced trauma and were more likely torecover away from their families andcommunities. Caleb House was established in2003 and began operations in 2004.

The 3 childcare institutions established byCatholic organisations are:

l Ina Theresia in Malukul Dr. J. Lukas in North Sulawesil Sayap Kasih in North Sulawesi

While Sayap Kasih was established underthe initiative of a Catholic brother by BrotherHanszt from Holland in 2001 and it retainssome of his values and approaches, its mainfocus is not on religion but on caring forneglected children with ‘double disability’ orboth mental and physical disability. Unlike themajority of institutions caring for people withdisability in Indonesia which usually care forboth children and adults, Sayap Kasih caresexclusively for children. It was established withsupport from the Dutch Foundation Vivrabuand is now under the Manuel Runtu foundation(Yamaru) which is a local social organisationoperating in Tomohon. It is the only institutionthat cares for disabled children in NorthSulawesi.

The childcare institution established by aHindu organisation is Dharma Laksana in NTBand the institution established by a Buddhistorganisation is Prajapati in North Sulwesi.

The research also selected 3 institutionsthat were established by private organisationswith a social focus rather than a religious focus.

PEPABRI (Persatuan Purnawirawan AngkatanBersenjata Republik Indonesia) in WestKalimantan is a childcare institution that wasestablished in 1997 by a private foundation tosupport children whose parents are membersof the Armed Forces (ABRI) and who areorphans or with a single parent. The institution’sfocus however has now shifted to supportingchildren who were victims of the inter-communal violence in Sambas.

Wahyu Yoga Dharma in Central Java on theother hand, was established in 1987 underDharma Wanita. Dharma Wanita is agovernment created association of female civilservants operating as a private social welfarefoundation. Most of the Board members forWahyu Yoga Dharma are members of DharmaWanita neverthless this institution does notcome under and is not part of the officialprogramme of the District level DharmaWanita.

Finally the research also selected onechildcare institution established under aninternational organisation. SOS Desa Taruna inCentral Java is one of a number of ‘SOSChildren Villages’ established in Indonesiaunder the international organisation formerlyknown as SOS Kinderdorf. Other SOS Villagesare located in Lembang, West Java, (the firstestablished in 1970), in Cibubur in Jakarta, inTabanan in Bali1, in Flores in NTT and the mostrecent one, in Aceh. The use of the word‘Village’ is to reflect the approach taken by thisorganisation which establishes individual homesfor children headed by foster mothers on acompound which aims to reflect a village typeof structure.

Links with other services provided bytheir parents organisations

Another aspect linked to their ownershipstatus relates to whether the childcare


page

67

institution is run as a stand alone facility or isactually linked to other services provided bythe parent organisation.

As can be seen from the Graph below,while a great number of childcare institutions(13) were run as a stand alone service, therewas also a significant number that wereattached to other services provided by theparent organisations, in particular educationthrough a pesantren or a school.

The situation of the childcare institutionsassessed was as follows:

1. Of the 36 childcare institutions, 13 wererun by their parent organisation as a standalone service.

2. Another 6 were run within an Islamicboarding school, a Pesantren. These wereDarul Ulum Al Munawarrah in Aceh, DarulAitam and Darul Hikmah in NTB, IbnuTaimiyah in West Kalimantan, Al Muthadienin North Sulawesi and Hidayatullah inMaluku. Hidayatullah also runs akindergarten and elementary school.

3. Another 4 institutions were run togetherwith an educational facility including aschool for Muhammadiyah Lhoksemawein Aceh, Dharma Laksana in NTB, aMadrasah Ibtidaiyah and a kindergarten forAl Amin in West Kalimantan and aKindergarten for SOS Desa Taruna.

4. The 8 Government institutions underProvincial or District Office of SocialServices (Dinas Sosial) are clearly run aspart of broader social services. Mostoperated within their own compound andseparately from other services but HukeIna in Maluku is actually housing theDistrict Office of Social Services. Inaddition, UPRS in West Kalimantan is partof a complex called a Unit of TechnicalImplementation (UPTD) which bringstogether in one compound a range ofservices provided by the provincialauthority including in this case, anInstitution for Disabled People and anInstitution for Substance Abusers.

5. Finally, 5 childcare institutions were alsorun together with a range of other servicesincluding Eben Haezer in West Kalimantanthat also runs a kindergarten, a communityhealth centre, a junior high school and atheological school as well as a student’shostel. Muhammadiyah Cilacap in CentralJava runs a Street Children Shelter.Prajapati’s parent organization in NorthSulawesi also runs a university and a Homefor the Elderly. Nurul Ikhlas runs an Islamicschool (Madrasah Ibtidaiyah and MadrasahTsanawiyah) and a Home for the ElderlyFinally, Sayap Kasih’s parent organisationYamaru, also located in North Sulawesiruns an Academy of Physiotherapy.

Operational Range

The operational range of the childcareinstitutions was also another important aspectof the way they delivered services. While someoperate only at the District level, others workat the Provincial or even National level.

In that regard the research found quite acomplex picture in terms of the childcareinstitutions’ own operational range in relationto that of their parent organisations. Whilesome of the childcare institutions had clearlybeen established by national level organisations,they did not necessarily operate at the samelevel. This could be either because the parentorganisation actually runs a number of childcare

Graph 3 Link between childcare institutionsand other services provided by parent

organisation


page

68

institutions within a particular province oracross a number of Provinces or because thechildcare institution saw its operational rangeas being limited to its location and thecommunity it served. In many ways, thesituation seemed to depend on the communitylinks and the recruitment practices of themanager and staff of the institutions rather thanan organisational decision about the scope ofits outreach as will seen in section IX onrecruitment practices.

As the Graph above indicates half of thechildcare institutions assessed stated theyoperated at Provincial level. In other words,they felt that they had a mandate to recruitchildren and carry outreach activities acrossall of the Districts within a particular Province.In relation to the Provincial level Governmentrun institutions, the mandate is clearly to reachthe whole Province. This does not mean thatthese institutions necessarily reach all of theDistricts within a province or even that themajority of children come from outside of theDistrict where the institution is located. Inaddition while the District level Governmentinstitutions clearly focus on their Districts, thisalso does not mean that some do not recruitchildren from outside of their District. Nirmalain Aceh for example, has in its care a majorityof children from outside Banda Aceh.

In relation to the privately ownedchildcare institutions, 5 were identified as

operating at the national level, 12 wereoperating at the Provincial level while 11 wereoperating at the District level. Of the Provinciallevel childcare institutions only Ibnu Taimiyah,Nurul Iklhas and Caleb House actually had amajority of children from outside their District.On the other hand, Muhammadiyah Meulabohand Darul Ulum in Aceh, Dharma Laksana inNTB, Eben Haezer in West Kalimantan, SayapKasih as well as Prajapati and Dr. J. Lukas inNorth Sulawesi cared for only a small numberof children from outside their District. Fromthis we can gather that the fact that aninstitution states that it is operating at theProvincial level does necessarily mean that itsoutreach extends outside of the District inwhich it is located.

A similar situation was found with thechildcare institutions that stated that theyoperated at the national level. Only SOS DesaTaruna in Central Java cared for a majority ofchildren from outside that Province. This wasdue however, to the fact that as an organisation,SOS has a policy to place children in its careoutside of their Province of origin in one ofthe other childcare institutions it runs. Thispractice is used, according to SOS, to ensurethat the children are able to build strongerrelations with their foster mother and thechildren’s biological families are less likely tointervene in the caring. As we have seen above,SOS operates in 6 provinces so it can clearlybe identified as a national level organisation.On the other hand, Darul Aitam in NTB wasfound to only care for 5 children from outsidethat province while Dorkas in North Sulawesionly cared for 2 and Ina Theresia in Maluku for3.

The 11 childcare institutions operating atthe District level were also found to have quitevaried outreach practices in practice .Muhammadiyah and Al Ummah in Aceh, AlMuthadien in North Sulawesi and Al Amin inWest Kalimantan reached across the District.Darul Hikmah in NTB and Darurrokhmah inCentral Java were found to only reach the sub-district level. Wahyu Yoga Dharma in CentralJava, Al Hidayah in Maluku and Nur Ilahi in WestKalimantan on the other hand were found tohave recruited a majority of their children from

Graph 4. Operational Range of ParentOrganisation


page

69

outside the District. Meanwhile, Muham-madiyah Cilacap in Central Java and Al Iklhasin Maluku cared for children in almost equalnumber from both within and outside of theirDistrict.

Legal Status

The legal status of childcare institutionsis, as we have seen, based on their parentorganisation having an Act of Notary and aletter of authorization by the local or provincialOffice of Social Welfare confirming itsregistration as a social organization. This letteris sometimes called a SIK (Surat Izin Kegiatan).This requirement only applies to childcareinstitutions established by private organisationsas Government institutions are not requiredto possess such documents. The followingGraph illustrates the legal situation of the 28privately owned childcare institutions that wereassessed,

As the Graph indicates, only 22 out of the28 institutions had an Act of Notary. Two ofthe Muhammadiyah institutions explained thatas branches of the national organisation, onlytheir national office had an Act of Notary. Oneinstitution explained that it did not have onebecause of a change in management andanother 3 did not have any explanation aboutwhy they did not have one. It is likely that these

institutions must have had one at some pointas their parent organisations were registeredand an Act of Notary would have beenrequired for that.

In relation to a letter of authorizationshowing that their parent organisation wasregistered as a social organisation, 24 childcareinstitutions were found to have one while 4did not. Of those that did not have such a letter,one however had a letter from the local Officeof Social Welfare certifying their Act of Notary.The status of the other three as socialorganisations was not clear. Even thoughchildcare institutions are only required to havetwo documents from their parent organisationsto be legal, the fact that a number did notcomply with this indicates that the system toensure the legal status of such organisations isnot functioning properly.

One of the institutions that did not havea letter of registration explained that they hadforgotten to get one as there was nomonitoring or supervision provided by the localOffice of Social Welfare at the District orProvincial level. This lack of supervision couldalso been seen from the fact that in four cases,the letter of registration held by the parentorganisation had already expired and norenewal had been sought.

The validity period for the letter ofregistration issued by the local Offices of SocialWelfare whether at the district or provinciallevels also seemed to vary. In Aceh, CentralJava, NTB West Kalimantan and North Sulawesi,such letters were to be renewed every 3 years.Meanwhile in Maluku it has to be renewedevery two years.

As we have seen, the letter of registrationonly refers to the parent organisation and noregistration document is actually required forthe childcare institutions. The researchconfirmed that none of the Provincial orDistrict levels authorities where the childcareinstitutions were located had taken theinitiative to develop any kind of registrationsystem for the individual institutions. This issurprising as, if no other reason, this wouldenable these authorities to actually know

Graph 5 Legal Status of Private childcareinstitutions


page

70

where the institutions are located or whethernew institutions are being established.

There also seems to be confusion aboutthe process of certification established underLaw No 16 of 2001 on Private Foundations,whereby these organisations are requiredunder Article 11(2) to get their foundingdocument (Act of Notary) certified by theprovincial office of the Ministry of Justice andHuman Rights. Few seemed to have done so.

Year of establishment and beginning ofoperation

The research found that there could beconsiderable gaps between the year aninstitution was deemed to have been foundedand the year it actually started operating. Theyear in which the childcare institutions assessedstarted operations can be seen in the followinggraph,

As can be seen from this Graph, thechildcare institutions assessed encompassedinstitutions which have been operating for avery long time as well as some that wererecently established.

The oldest institution was Dorkas aprivate institution in North Sulawesi which wasestablished as far back as 1934, followed byWoro Wiloso, a government owned institutionfor girls in Central Java, established in 1949.

In fact Woro Wiloso already operatedbefore 1949 but as a homeless personinstitution which provided services for thosewho had lost everything or had been separatedas a result of the war for Independence fromHolland. After 1949 the institution changed itsfunction as there were many neglected childrenas a result of that war and started to care onlyfor children. Its name was changed to WoroWiloso which means in Javanese ’healthychildren’. The fact that childcare institutionswere already operating more than 60 yearsago point to the fact that such institutions havebeen playing a role in the delivery of socialservices in Indonesia for already a long time.

The childcare institutions that wereestablished after 2000 include Al Ummah inAceh (2000), Dharma Laksana in NTB (2000),Sayap Kasih in North Sulawesi (2001), UPRS inWest Kalimantan (2003) and Caleb House inMaluku (2004). As we have seen, Caleb House

Graph 6. Year childcare institutions started operations


page

71

was established specifically with the aim ofsupporting child victims of the conflict inMaluku to recover from trauma, pointing tothe very broad role these institutions are nowseen to play.

The majority of the institutions assessed(28 out of 36) started operations within theyear they were established. However, 8institutions seemed to have significant gapsbetween the year they were established andwhen they actually started operating as can beseen below,

1. Suci Hati, a government institution in Aceh,was established in 1953 to care for theElderly and the Disabled. In 1984 it wastransformed into a childcare institution.Following the decentralisation process,Suci Hati was handed over in 2002 to theMeulaboh District Government.

2. Nurul Ikhlas in Maluku was established in1991 but only began operations in 1993.During the 2 year interval it proceededto look for children and the funds to carefor them. In 1993 it began operations with12 children.

3. Dharma Laksana in NTB was establishedas an organisation in 1992 but its childcareinstitution only started operating in 2000.In the first eight years, this organisationfocused on providing education forchildren from the Hindu communities. Asthe BBM subsidy became available ,however, Dharma Laksana established achildcare institution to access that funding.as it is only provided to those runninginstitutions.

4. Al Hidayah in Maluku was first establishedas religious worship group in 1994 but itschildcare institution started operation onlytwo years later in 1996.

5. Darurrokhmah in Central Java wasestablished in 1990 and started itsoperation in 1991. During that intervalyear it prepared its facilities and lookedfor both funding and children. A similarprocess was followed by a number ofother institutions including Eben Haezer(1972/1973) and Nur Ilahi (1995/1997) in

West Kalimantan, Lohoraung in NorthSulawesi (1976/1977) and Caleb House inMaluku (2003/2004).

Type of care services

The majority of childcare institutionsassessed (22) provided purely residentialservices for children. A number (12) alsocombined residential services with someservices to children and their families outsideof the institution. In terms of the number ofchildren reached and the types of servicesprovided by these institutions it was clearhowever that residential care remained theprimary focus for all.

The assistance provided by institutions tochildren living with their families not onlyreached relatively small numbers of children,it also tended to be short term often beingrotated around families in the community everyyear rather than amounting to a sustainedcommitment for a number of years. Thesupport provided took primarily the form ofassistance with school costs or food andclothes. Educational assistance generallyincluded support with fees or books, writingmaterial or uniforms as was the case in EbenHaezer, Wahyu Yoga Dharma, Darurrokhmah,Muhammadiyah Cilacap, Dharma Laksana,Nurul Ikhlas, Al Hidayah, Patmos, Caleb Houseand Ina Theresia. Assistance in the form ofrice and also sometimes noodles, milk, sugar

Graph 7. Type of care services


page

72

and clothes was provided by Eben Haezer,Caleb House, Prajapati and Ina Theresia. Otherassistance provided outside of the institutionincluded religious teaching every evening in AlUmmah in Aceh for 80 children from thesurrounding communities. Two institutions alsoprovided assistance to families in thesurrounding communities as part of theirbroader programme of assistance. Harapan andPatmos in NTB provided support to 30 familieseach in the form of cash (around USD 100 peryear per family).

The type and duration of the assistanceindicated that such assistance was generallyseen as an ‘extra’ rather than as an alternativeto the residential services provided. As wewill see in the section on professional care,the ad hoc nature of such assistance is due toa real lack of capacity and staff on the part ofthe institutions to actually deliver supportservices to children outside of the institutions.In addition, some institutions provided thisassistance as a last resort, if the maximumcapacity of the institution had already beenreached or if families could not be convincedto place the child in residential care or thechild kept running away.

Funding and Assistance

One of the biggest challenges for thisresearch was accessing reliable data on thechildcare institutions’ funding sources.Without any regulatory system that requiressuch institutions to keep accurate records ofthe funding they receive whether public orprivate, it is extremely difficult to get anaccurate picture of these institutions’ realoperational budget and sources of funding.While some institutions were reluctant toprovide details of the funding and assistancethey received, the majority were willing butsimply did not keep accurate records, exceptfor assistance received through thegovernment such as the BBM subsidy and insome cases for major private donations. Inmany cases, the total amount of funding thatwas identified by the Manager and the staff fora particular year did not match its operationalbudget for the same year, making it difficult to

ascertain how the gap had been funded.Nonetheless, the research attempted toidentify as far as possible the types and sourcesof funding that these institutions relied onprimarily for their operations.

The research identified 8 different typesof funding for the childcare institutions whichincluded both support through organisationsand agencies whether governmental or nongovernmental as well as private donationsprovided on an individual basis. Six differenttypes of funding through organisations andinstitutions were identified and two types ofindividual donations. Funding throughorganisations or agencies included governmentfunding, funding from private companies, socialorganisations, international organisations orforeign governments, funding through aninstitution’s parent organisation as well asincome from an institution’s own small businessenterprise. The two types of individualcontributions identified included personaldonations from the managers or boardmembers of the childcare institution as wellas individual donations from members of thecommunity. The types of assistance providedwas primarily money but also took other formssuch as buildings or the material for building,office equipment, catering equipment, houseware, mattresses and beds, vocational trainingtools, water and sanitary equipment and foodincluding in particular rice and ready madenoodles. The following Graph shows thedifferent types of assistance provided to the36 childcare institutions assessed.


page

73

Funding for the childcare institutions cameprimarily from outside and contribution froman institution’s own parent organisation orfrom its own managers and board membersonly constituted a small part of the fundingreceived by these institutions. In fact, only 6childcare institutions out of the 28 privatechildcare institutions seem to be receiving anyfunding from their parent organisation. 10childcare institutions also relied on privatecontributions from their Managers or BoardMembers but this constituted only a small partof their actual funding base. On the other hand,all of the childcare institutions assessedreceived Government assistance and 31 of the36 received donations from the localcommunity.

Government institutions, of course, werefunded primarily although not exclusively,through local government funding at theDistrict or Provincial level. In addition, all ofthe provincial and district level governmentinstitutions received the BBM subsidy fromDEPSOS. As well as this, 3 governmentinstitutions also received donations from thecommunity or local organisations (Nirmala,Lohoraung and Pamardi Utomo) whether incash or through food and other materialdonations.

All of the private childcare institutionsreceived government funding through the BBMsubsidy and this seemed to constitute a majorif not the major part of their operationalfunding. The majority of institutions receivedBBM funding for 30 children. While the BBMsubsidy tended to be given for a flat numberof children there seemed to be somecorrelation between the number of childrenin the institutions and the BBM subsidy so thatinstitutions that cared for around 100 childrentended to get BBM subsidy for 50 childrenwhile those that cared for less than 50 childrengot subsidy for 30 children or under. This wouldalso seem to confirm the estimation made inSection III that the BBM subsidy covers anythingfrom 50 -70% of children in an institution. Itwas also clear from the research that therewere no prior assessments of needs carriedout in terms of which institutions wouldactually need the BBM subsidy the most orwhether there were institutions which mayactually not need it bearing in mind their overallfinancial situation.

Auditing of some of the institutions inreceipt of the BBM subsidy seemed to havebeen carried out although focused entirely onchecking whether the funds were actually usedfor food. Two of the childcare institutions

Graph 8 Number of institutions accessing particular source of funding


page

74

surveyed were found to have violated the BBMrules. Receipt of the BBM subsidy was endedin Al Hidayah in Maluku in 2006 because thisinstitution used the subsidy to support childrenoutside of residential care. Similarly, the BBMsubsidy for Al Amin in West Kalimantan wasstopped in 2004/2005 as the result of an auditwhich indicated that the institution had usedthe fund to buy children’s clothes for theLebaran festival. In 2006, however, Al Aminreceived the BBM subsidy again.

In addition to the BBM, childcareinstitutions in Aceh received additionalassistance from the Government in theaftermath of the tsunami, particularly throughassistance provided by the main Rehabilitationand Reconstruction Agency, the BRR. Theconsiderable funding that was provided by theBRR directly to the childcare institutions from2005 to 2006 amounted to over USD 3.7million and another USD 1.7 million was dueto be disbursed to these institutions in 2007.2

3 of the 6 institutions assessed in Aceh hadreceived BRR funds of around USD 5000 perinstitution to cover for operational costs orrehabilitation for those affected by the tsunami.

Apart from the BBM subsidy a number ofthe childcare institutions also accessed fundsfrom the local government at the district andProvincial levels through the local authoritybudget, the APBD (Anggaran PendapatanBelanja Daerah). Local government funds werereceived by both government and privatechildcare institutions.

The Government institutions accessedAPBD funding in the following ways:

l Suci Hati in Aceh received from the Districtlevel government budget almost USD40,000 for 145 children in 2006 to coverfood, fees, school uniforms and clothes for’special occasions’.

l Woro Wiloso, a Provincial level Governmentinstitution also received funds from theProvincial budget of Central Javaamounting to USD 102,300 for 55 childrenbetween 2004 and 2006.

l Pamardi Utomo also in Central Javareceived funds from the provincial

government’s budget of USD 48,000 for60 children in 2006 to cover staff costs,services to children, transportation costs,administration and maintenance ofinfrastructures.

l Harapan in NTB received USD 105,700in 2005 from the Provincial Government.

l Lohoraung in North Sulawesi received USD2000 in 2006 from the local authority tosupport food costs for 20 children.

l Huke Ina in NTB has been receiving fundsto cover food costs from the District levelgovernment budget from 2000 onwardstotalling over USD 33,000.

l Similarly while UPRS in West Kalimantanalso get the BBM subsidy, the greater partof its budget comes from the Provinciallevel government which contributed USD167,000 in 2006.

As far as privately run childcare institutionsare concerned, funding from the localgovernment budget came through the Officeof Social Affairs at the District or Municipalitylevel. The assistance varied from financialsupport for operational costs, for food costs,for building repairs, scholarships and otherschool costs as well as some support for microenterprise. As well as the funds provided bythe local Office of Social Welfare someinstitutions also received funds from other localgovernment offices. Some examples follow:

l In 2006 Muhammadiyah Meulaboh in Acehreceived funds to support its operationalcosts from the Provincial governmentbudget amounting to USD 2,200 as wellas funds to support food costs from theDistrict level government of about USD1100 for 45 children.

l Darul Ulum also in Aceh received funds in2006 from the local Social Welfare Officein Lhoksemawe of USD 37,300 to coverfood costs for 160 children for a year.

l Meanwhile Al Ummah received funds in2006 from the local Department ofEducation of USD 5,500 for the renovationof its buildings.


page

75

l Wahyu Yoga Dharma in Central Java hasbeen receiving small funds every year fromthe local government for the maintenanceof its buildings starting in 2003 with USD330 to 2006 where it amounted to aroundUSD 660.

l Al Amin in West Kalimantan received fundsfrom the District level office of SocialWelfare in Singkawang of USD 2,316 for2005-2006 to support the food costs of38 children in the institution.

l Ibnu Taimiyah also in West Kalimantanreceived USD 3,832 for 42 children in2005 and USD 2,061 for 41 children in2006 from the local government ofSingkawang.

l Ina Theresia in Maluku received USD 1,666in 2005 from the local office of SocialWelfare to cover school fees for 1 year,clothes, and other school materials for 47children.

l In 2005 Nurul Ikhlas in Maluku receivedscholarships from the provincial level officeof Social Welfare for 90 children to besupported outside of the institutionamounting to USD 110 per child as wellas USD 55 for the 101 children inside theinstitution. It also received funds from thelocal Department of Education in 2005 tosupport the construction of a meeting hall,a library and to rehabilitate the school. In2006 it received financial support from theSocial Welfare Office for its small businessenterprise of USD 2,777 which is used forthe development of its vegetable plot anda mechanical repair shop and USD 3,300to repair its kitchen.

After Government assistance, the mainsource of assistance for the childcareinstitutions was community donations with 31of the 36 institutions receiving such assistance.5 Government institutions did not receive suchdonations as their budget is already securedby the Government. Community assistancetook many forms from boxes of noodles, bagsof rice or livestock to individual donations ofcash on a one off basis or on a regular basis. Inrelation to the childcare institutions run by

Muslim organisations, the Ramadan periodrepresented a significant time for receivingsubstantial donations, depending on thestrength of their links with the surroundingcommunities. In one case in West Kalimantanfor example, Nur Ilahi received donations incash through the door of USD 4400 in justtwo weeks during the month of Ramadan aswell as considerable donations in kind. Nur Ilahialso received donations of building materialfrom members of the Chinese communityhighlighting the fact that this institution hadmanaged to develop links not only within theMuslim community. Some of the followingexamples give an idea of the types of donationsreceived by the childcare institutions.

l Sayap Kasih in North Sulawesi has receivedregular cash donations from an individualbenefactor since 2002 of over USD 550per year and in 2006 it received aroundUSD 1100.

l Eben Haezer in West Kalimantan has anumber of individual benefactors. In 1996the institution received a gift of about USD7000 from the relatives of someone whohad died, which it used to build the secondfloor of its building for a prayer room andbedrooms for the girls. It also receivesregular donations of USD 55 per monthevery year since 2004. Another source in2006 gave around USD 550 which wasused to build the toilets.

l Dr. Lukas in North Sulawesi receivedvarious individual donations in 2005 whichtotalled around USD 7,240.

l Hidayatullah in Maluku also receivedsignificant private donations in 2005 ofaround USD 2,600 for regular donors andUSD 3,300 from occasional donors.

l Al Hidayah in Maluku also received someprivate contributions from both regularand occasional donors that amounted toaround USD 1760 from 2005 to 2007.

Out of the 28 private childcare institutions,18 also received assistance from socialorganisations. In particular 15 of the childcareinstitutions in all of the 6 Provinces hadreceived assistance through the Dharmais


page

76

Foundation which seems to be a significantsource of funding for childcare institutions. (Seetext box on Dharmais Foundation). The fundsseemed to be provided on a regular basis andsome institutions like Wahyu Yoga Dharma inCentral Java had received such assistance since1988. This assistance is meant to supportprimarily the costs of food, health and clothes.

Darul Hikmah in NTB for example, hasreceived from the Dharmais Foundationfinancial support of between USD 3000 to USD2000 per year in between 2004 to 2006.

Major companies also provided assistanceto 11 of the childcare institutions including anumber of State owned companies such asPertamina the State oil company, PLN thenational electricity company, Bulog the nationallogistical agency, a number of state ownedBanks including BNI and Mandiri as well as theJayanti Group a private corporation.

International assistance was provided boththrough foreign government donations as wellas through international non governmental

organisations or private individuals. Themajority of that assistance was found to havebeen provided in Aceh in the context of theresponse to the tsunami including assistancereceived by Nirmala from the JapanInternational Cooperation System, byMuhammadiyah Meulaboh from Mercy ReliefSingapore, by Suci Hati from Cardi Norwayand by Darul Ulum Munawarrah from ICONetherlands. A number of institutions outsideof Aceh were also linked to foreign foundationsas well as receiving support from privatebenefactors overseas as in the case of CalebHouse in Maluku, and Sayap Kasih in NorthSulawesi or support from international nongovernmental organisations working inIndonesia such Dr. J. Lukas in North Sulawesithat had received support from Terres desHommes.

In relation to the size of their annualbudget, not all of the childcare institutions wereable to provide information. A number ofinstitutions felt that this was confidentialinformation and were not willing to provide it

Financial Assistance to Institutions: DHARMAIS

The Yayasan Dharma Bakti Sosial (Dharmais Foundation)3 was established in 1975 byformer President Soeharto. The foundation was created as it was felt that the Governmentwas not yet able to fulfil its responsibility under Article 34 of the 1945 Constitution whichstated that the State had to care for poor and neglected children. The Foundation wasestablished to support the ‘GOLKAR’ family (the main political party led by Soeharto) butin 1998 after the fall of the President, it changed its aims towards working for the eliminationof poverty in a number of Provinces that are deemed particularly deprived such as EastJava, Central Java and East Nusa Tenggara.

In its first report to the Committee on the Rights of the Child in 1992, the Governmentof Indonesia highlighted the Dharmais Foundation’s role in that regard pointing that, “theGovernment has established a special foundation named Dharmais Foundation to provide attentionto children deprived of a family environment. The programme of the Dharmais Foundation is tosupport educational activities for children and give them opportunities to participate in thedevelopment process.”4

The Dharmais Foundation works in the social field with the aim of supporting thegovernment to respond to a number of social problems and improve social welfare includingsupporting members of society who are so poor so they cannot play their role fully withintheir communities and their country. The Foundation operates programmes in the social,health, human resource development, education and welfare fields.


page

77

or would only provide partial information.Nevertheless some interesting informationcould be gathered from the 34 institutions thatwere able to provide information for eithertheir 2005 or 2006 budget. Half of the childcareinstitutions (17) that provided information hadan annual budget of less than USD 10,000. Thisincluded one Government institution,Lohoraung in North Sulawesi.

On the other hand the 3 biggest budgetsfor 2006 were those of government institutionswith UPRS in West Kalimantan heading that listwith over USD 170,000 per year and Harapanin NTB with over USD 110,000 and Nirmalain Aceh with USD 103,000. There were afurther 8 institutions including 4 privately run

and 4 government institutions that had anannual budget of between USD 20,000 and50,000. When the annual budgets werecompared to the number of children cared forby these institutions, again Governmentinstitutions topped the list of the institutionswith the biggest budget per child being foundin 6 government institutions compared to only2 private childcare institutions. UPRS (USD2,853 per child) and Harapan (USD 1,121 perchild) had significantly bigger budgets than therest while another four Governmentinstitutions had a budget of over USD 700 perchild. Sayap Kasih in North Sulawesi was theprivate institution with the highest budget perchild (USD 1,109 USD per child), followed byDr. J. Lukas (759 USD per child).

While this does not mean that theseinstitutions necessarily spend the money onchildren, it does confirm that the budgets ofthe majority of government childcareinstitutions are generally much bigger than thatof private childcare institutions.

Its funding comes from a number of sourcesincluding from the community and localbusinesses, banks, private companies, individualdonations, legacies, as well as regular benefactors.

One of Dharmais’ main social programmesrelates to providing financial support to

residential institutions for children, disabled people and the elderly across Indonesia:

p From 1976 to 2005, the Foundation is said to have provided financial assistance tothese institutions amounting USD 76 million.

p In 2006, Dharmais allocated USD 3.3 million for 1,550 institutions for orphans andneglected children, the elderly, disabled people in 26 Provinces using an index of USD5 per person per month for food costs, nutrition and health services.

p In 2007, Dharmais again allocated USD 3.2 million for these institutions.

The criteria to be met by institutions in order to receive assistance from Dharmaisinclude having a legal status, having operated for at least a year and receivedrecommendations from the Head of the District/Municipality, the local office of SocialWelfare and the coordinator of the local social organisations (KKKS). The funds aredisbursed every three months.


page

78

While the budgets of Government ownedchildcare institutions tended to be much biggerper child than that of privately ownedinstitutions, this did not mean that thesebudgets related only to services provided forchildren. In fact a substantial portion of thosebudgets goes to other operational costsassociated with running these institutions,including the salaries of the civil servants, themaintenance of the facilities as well asadministrative costs. For example in UPRS thebudget for services for children came toapproximately 50% of that total operationalbudget.

Harapan, the Government institution inNTB, provides a fairly typical example of budgetbreakdown in a Government institution. In2005 it received from the provincialgovernment budget USD 105,700 and USD6,400 for 70 children from the centralgovernment BBM Subsidy. Out of this, itallocated 55% for services for children, 36%for wages of the staff, 3% for administration,4% for electricity, water and communication,1% for staff official travel and 1% formaintenance of infrastructures and vehicles.

From the privately run childcareinstitutions, Wahyu Yoga Dharma in Central Javaprovides another example. Its 2005 budgetamounted to USD 12,300. The funds were usedas follows: services for children 41%, buildingand vehicles maintenance 49%, administration3% and staff costs 7%. 5

In relation to services provided forchildren, the budgets of the childcareinstitutions tended to relate primarily to food,education, health, clothes and transport toschool. In a few cases there were also budgetallocation for vocational training andrecreational activities.

Al Ikhlas in NTB, for example, used itsbudget for children services in 2005 in thefollowing way:

· 83% for food· 9% clothes· 1% education· 1% recreation· 6% health

Nur Ilahi in West Kalimantan providesanother example,

· 60% for food· 2.5% health· 30% education· 1.7% recreation· 5% clothes· 0.8% vocational training

From the data available it is clear that thebiggest share of the budget in terms of servicesto children went to food. Budget allocation foreducation tended to be lower as children fromelementary and junior high school seemed ablein most cases to access the Government’sOperational Assistance to School (BOS-Bantuan Operasional Sekolah). This schemeaims to reduce or even eliminate school feesthrough direct assistance to schools. It doesnot, however, cover senior high school and theextent to which it actually reduced school feesat elementary and junior levels seemed to varyquite a lot. The childcare institutions’ share ofthe education budget related mainly to thecosts of transportation to school, books andother materials, uniforms, pocket money forlocal transport and snacks as well as othercosts not covered under BOS. A number ofchildcare institutions were also able to accessfree health care through the local communityhealth centres (Puskesmas) while others hadspecific budgets for children’s health althoughthese tended to be quite small as can be seenin the examples above.

The children

This section gives a general picture of thesituation of the children cared for by the 36childcare institutions assessed in terms ornumbers, age, gender, parental status level ofeducation as well as where they came fromand how long they have been in care. This datawas gathered first of through the data kept inthe institutions and through interviews withthe manager and staff of the institutions. Thedata was then rechecked directly with thechildren to ensure its accuracy but also clarifywhere there may be some inconsistency. Aswe will see in Section XIII on Administration,


page

79

while childcare institutions on the whole keptvery little data, records of children’s age, genderand parental status were generally kept. Thedata though, particularly in relation to parentalstatus could be confusing as in many cases, theManager or staff that had admitted the childused terms to mean different things so that,for example, in cases where a child’s parentsmay be divorced, the child may have beenentered as ‘fatherless’ or ‘motherless’ in theregister. Equally, many institutions referred toa child whose father had died as an orphanwhile the child’s mother may be alive and stillin contact with the child. The fact that theseinstitutions define their role as ‘caring for theorphans’ as well as the fact that assistance isoften geared towards ‘orphans’ meant that incases where parental status was not clear,children tended to be entered as ‘orphans’. Asa result, it was particularly key to re-check thedata kept by the institutions on the child’sparental situation.

While this data cannot be used toextrapolate on the situation and status ofchildren in childcare institutions acrossIndonesia, it does provide useful insight of whatthe trends and patterns may be at the macrolevel.

Numbers and Sex

The total number of children who werecared for in the 36 childcare institutions was

2.248 children including 1.234 boys (55%) and1.014 girls (45%).

Out of the 36 childcare institutionsassessed, 29 were mixed and 7 were single sex.The four childcare institutions caring only forboys were: Pamardi Utomo in Central Java,Muhammadiyah Lhoksemawe in Aceh, AlHidayah in Maluku and Al Ikhlas in NTB. The 3childcare institutions for girls were: WoroWiloso in Central Java, Nur Ilahi in WestKalimantan and Darrurohkmah in Central Java.There was therefore a relative balance in termsof the single sex institutions chosen and interms of number of children in those (178 boysfor 120 girls).

If we compare the number of boys andgirls in the childcare institutions that cared forboth sex, we can see that in 18 of theinstitutions there were more boys than girlswhile only in 7 institutions there were moregirls than boys. Four institutions cared for equalnumbers of boys and girls. The relatively highernumber of boys in childcare institutionscompared to girls was also identified inprevious research carried out on children ininstitutional care. In the Rapid Assessment ofChildren’s Homes in post-tsunami Aceh in2006, it was found that there were also moreboys than girls in the institutions in thatProvince with 59% of boys compared to 41%of girls.6

In the context where, as will be seenthroughout this research, placement ininstitutional care is understood to be primarilya way of accessing education, the greaternumber of boys placed in those institutionscould reflect the fact that education is stillconsidered more important for boys than girlsin some areas. This could result from the factfamilies are seeing investing in boys’ educationin some areas as a way of ensuring they will beable to contribute economically to the familyby being able to get better work through bettereducation. Equally, this could be the result ofthe fact that girls’ role in terms of theircontribution to domestic work and care ofsiblings may be deemed more important thantheir education particularly within householdsfacing economic difficulty.

Graph 9 Gender breakdown of children in the36 institutions


page

80

While the number of boys being cared forin the institutions was greater in most of theprovinces, in West Kalimantan and NorthSulawesi, interestingly there were highernumbers of girls being cared for. This seemsto reflect the trends seen in terms ofenrolment rates between boys and girls ofdifferent age groups as discussed in Section VIas in both Provinces, enrolment for girls was

significantly higher than for boys unlike in otherProvinces.

The picture in Aceh though is verydifferent with 20% more boys than girls in theinstitutions which is not in line with the dataon school enrolment rate, which were high forboth boys and girls in the data from 2003. Dataon NTB also point to 20% more boys in theinstitutions assessed than girls. The differencein numbers of boys and girls was very small inCentral Java.

The data also shows much higher numbersof children per institution in Aceh and in NTBthan in other Provinces. In Aceh, the numberof children in the 6 institutions assessedrepresented 26% of the total number ofchildren in the 36 institutions. Similarly NTBaccounted for 20% of the total number ofchildren. On average, there were 97 childrenper institution in Aceh and 77 children perinstitution in NTB compared with only 41

children per institution in West Kalimantan. Itis clear from that data that childcare institutionsfrom both provinces tended to be larger andcaring for many more children. This may belinked to the strong role Islamic organisationsplay in those two provinces in relation tochildcare institutions and Islamic boardingschools.

In order to ensure that the range ofchildcare institutions and approaches used toresidential care were represented in this

Graph 10. Comparison between the number of boys and girlsin the 36 institutions per Province


page

81

research, one of the criteria used for theselection of the institution was the number ofchildren in care. This was to ensure that bothinstitutions caring for small numbers of childrenas well as institutions caring for large numberof children were represented.

The breakdown in relation to institutionscaring for more than 100 children andinstitutions caring for less than 20 children wasas follows:

l There were 8 childcare institutions thatcared for more than 100 children: Patmosin NTB (100 children, 51 boys and 49 girls),Harapan also in NTB (100: 63–37), NurulIkhlas in Maluku (101: 57-44), Nirmala inAceh (11: 56–55), SOS Desa Taruna (141:91–50) in Central Java, Suci Hati in Aceh(145: 88-57), Darul Aitam in NTB (150: 85-65) and Darul Ulum Munawarrah in Aceh(176: 94-82). Harapan, Nirmala and SuciHati are government run institution whileDarul Aitam and Darul Ulum Munawarrahare institutions attached to Islamicboarding schools. SOS Desa Taruna whilebased on family cottages is developed in alarge ‘village’ compound and numbers ofchildren are therefore high. Patmos, onthe other hand, is a large Christianinstitution based on large ‘halls’ ofresidence while Nurul Ikhlas is a largeIslam based childcare institution whichruns its own school.

l There were 5 childcare institutions whichcared for less than 20 children, Al Hidayahin Maluku (9 children, all boys), DharmaLaksana (16: 8–8) in NTB, Sayap Kasih inNorth Sulawesi (18: 11–7), Lohoraung alsoin North Sulawesi (18: 10–8) and Pepabriin West Kalimantan (18: 10–8).

In relation to the Government institutions,the number of children in care relates to thequota that has been set for them in the budget.The government uses an index called SOSHfor its budget allocation which is based on oneperson per day (Satuan Orang Satu Hari). InSuci Hati in Aceh for example, the SOSHallocation through the local government budget(APBD) is IDR 10.000 per child (approximatelyUSD 1 a day). That institution is meant to have

145 in its care and receives the SOSH inrelation to that. Should children leave its care,the institution will immediately replace themwith one of the children on its waiting list tomake sure that its quota is filled and its budgetremains the same. At the time of the research,Suci Hati had 54 children on its waiting list (25boys and 29 girls)

As well as providing services for childrenin residential care, as we have seen 12 childcareinstitutions also provided services for somechildren outside of the institution, generally inthe form of support for education costs, foodor clothes. The number of children who re-ceived support outside of the institutionsthrough these 12 institutions was 412 children(215 boys and 197 girls). This means that outof the total number of children receiving as-sistance through the institutions 85% werereceiving residential care services while 15%were receiving some assistance outside of theinstitution. It is surprising to note in that re-gard that not one of the government run insti-tutions provided assistance to children out-side of the institutions bearing in mindDEPSOS’ own policy on assistance to childrenoutside of residential care.

One of the government institutionsassessed pointed out that they would be willingto provide such assistance but that this wouldalso require the government providing theresource needed to administer such assistance,

“From a macro perspective, this is going inthe wrong direction ... you’re given the opportunityto manage the children outside of the institution,for example, 200 children. In this area, there arestill a lot of children who need help. Well ... thatwould be better. But we mustn’t forget aboutpayment for the staff ... (laughs) ... that’s only fair.What’s sufficient and what isn’t is all relative ...” 7

While the direct assistance provided bythe 12 private childcare institutions could stillbe termed short term and ad hoc, it isnonetheless interesting to see that theseinstitutions have determined that their role interms of supporting the communities stretchbeyond the walls of their institutions and assuch, they provide some useful insight aboutthe capacity of childcare institutions to support


page

82

children within their families rather than bytaking them outside of those families.

Age

The emphasis on placing children ininstitutional care so they can access educationcomes across clearly through the data on theage range of children in the 36 institutionsassessed. As can be seen from the Graph belowthe majority of children in those institutionswere of school age and there were very fewchildren that were outside of that age range.

Over 93% of children in the 36 childcareinstitutions assessed were between 5 and 17years old with 45% of those being betweenthe age of 10 and 14. As we will see in SectionIX on Professional Practice most of thechildcare institutions made ‘school age’ a keycriteria for their recruitment and selectionprocesses.

This was not simply due to their primaryfocus on providing access to education but alsoas a result of the fact that most institutionsonly admitted children that were deemed ‘oldenough to take care of themselves’, usuallyunderstood to mean around Elementaryschool levels 3 or 4, i.e children of about 8-9years of age. As can be seen from the Graph

above, the vast majority of children in care(85%) are between 10 and 17 years of age.

Despite this major emphasis on school agechildren, there were in a few institutions casesof children who were both much younger andalso older. The youngest children being caredfor in these institutions was a 5 month oldboy in Ina Theresia in Maluku and a 2 monthsold girl in SOS Desa Taruna in Central Java.There were 3 children under 5 in SOS DesaTaruna. The oldest young persons were alsofound in SOS Desa Taruna with a young manof 26 and a young woman of 25. As we have

seen, SOS Desa Taruna focuses on establishingcare families for children and as such it focuseson children who are actually younger andchildren can remain in their care families for alonger period.

Out of the 2,248 children in the childcareinstitutions there were 129 young persons whowere 18 years and above or 5.7% of children.8

This group included young persons who hadnot yet graduated from High School (SLTA class3), who were studying at university or thosewho were performing their ‘volunteer year’ forsome of the institutions which were also Islamicboarding schools such as Darul Aitam andDarul Hikmah in NTB. In line with the focuson providing access to education until Senior

Graph 11 Age Range of children in childcare institutions


page

83

High School, the overwhelming majority ofchildren left the institution after graduation.

As the Graph also illustrates, boys werein the majority in each of the age group exceptfor the under 5 where there were almostdouble the number of girls.

Parental Status

Most childcare institutions identified theirrole as being primarily to assist children whoare orphaned, fatherless and finally childrenfrom poor families.

As can be seen from the Graph above,the research clearly showed that there werevery few orphans in the childcare institutionsacross the 6 Provinces, only 5.6% of the totalnumber of children. Instead the majority ofchildren in the childcare institutions still hadboth parents (56.4%). Those who still had oneparent alive whether mother or fatherconstituted 33.2% of the total number ofchildren. This means that almost 90% of thechildren had one or both parents aliveillustrating the fact that the concept of

‘orphanage’ or childcare institutions for thecare of the orphans is simply not reflected inreality.

In that regard this research confirmsresearch done in the childcare institutions inAceh in the aftermath of the tsunami that foundthat even in that dramatic post disaster andconflict context, the majority of child victimsof the tsunami placed in institutional care stillhad both parents (43%) with 85% having atleast one or both parents alive.9

Among children who still had one parent,there were clearly far more children who were

fatherless in the institutions than children whowere motherless. There are likely to be a rangeof reasons for this including the primary focuson many of the Islam based childcareinstitutions on supporting ‘fatherless children’.At the same time a widow or single mother islikely to find herself in a more difficult economicsituation having lost the income from the majorbreadwinner for the family in many cases whilsthaving sole responsibility for the caring. Inaddition there is evidence that in manycontexts in Indonesia it may be harder for a

Graph 12. Parental Status


page

84

woman with children to remarry than for aman for both cultural and social reasons andwhen she does, she is less likely to be able totake the children from her previous marriageinto this new union. This, however, can varysignificantly, however, across regions as a resultof the enormous cultural, religious and socialdiversity found across the IndonesianArchipelago.

In terms of the Provinces, the biggestnumber of fatherless children in institutionswas found in Aceh (143 boys and 72 girls) andNTB (93 boys and 86 girls). This seems toconfirm the emphasis in areas where Islamicorganisations are particularly strong onsupporting fatherless children.

In Maluku the number of fatherlesschildren was also quite high (79 boys and 56girls) and in fact it was the only province wherethere were more children in care who had lostone parent than children who still had bothparents (68 boys and 41 girls). Nurul Ikhlas,Hidayatullah and Caleb House in Maluku allcared for high numbers of children who hadlost their fathers. The high number of fatherlesschildren in Maluku and also in NAD is likely tobe due also to the impact of conflict in bothProvinces.

The parental status for a number ofchildren (4.8%) was not known includingchildren who did not know the whereaboutsof one parent and those that did not knowthe whereabouts of both their parents. Themajority of these children (73%) were foundin SOS Desa Taruna in Central Java (54 boysand 25 girls)

According to staff in that institution10, thereasons why the parental status for so manychildren in that institution was unknownrelated to the following: 1) the child wasreferred to the institution by social agenciesor the police, 2) the child was found by stafffrom the institutions in a number of locationsincluding in front of a church or in the train/bus station or 3) the child was placed in theinstitution by his or her mother after beingborn out of wedlock and the situation of themother following this was unknown. In addition,

staff also explained that those children whodid not know the whereabouts of their fathersgenerally were from East Nusa Tenggara. Theirfathers were migrant workers in Malaysia andhad not been heard from again.

The data also showed that a significantnumber of children were placed in theinstitution together with their sibling. As manyas 132 children in the institution had at leastone sibling in the same institution, another 39children had two siblings in the same institutionand 8 children had 3 or more siblings beingcared for in the same institution. The data onthe parental status of children in institutionshighlights the fact that placement in institutiongenerally does not result from loss of primarycarers but from a lack of capacity from families(real or perceived) to provide for their children.Childcare institutions are clearly seen as ameans of supporting families to provide fortheir children rather than a means of caringfor children who do not have families. Thefact that so many vulnerable families are relyingon childcare institutions to provide for theirchildren may indicate that programs that aremeant to support and empower families inIndonesia may not be reaching or impactingpositively on considerable number of families.

It is particularly interesting to note in thatregard that a high percentage of children inthese institutions (over 33%) were placed bysingle parents, particularly mothers (29%). Aswe have seen there can be a range of reasonsfor this but in all cases, these figures highlightthe critical need for interventions to supportsingle parents and in particular single mothers,to ensure that they are able to play fully theircrucial role in relation to the care of theirchildren.

Education Levels

The data in relation to the education levelsof children in the institutions assessed providesfurther evidence that education is the primaryfocus for most of these institutions. Thefollowing Graph illustrates the fact that almostall of the children in the institutions were atschool from elementary school level to senior


page

85

high school level. The majority of the childrenin care were in Junior High School.

Children who were attending school fromelementary to senior high school constituted97.78% of the total number of children in thechildcare institutions. This reflects clearly thefact that the 36 childcare institutions sawproviding access to education for the childrenin their care until senior high school as a keypart of their work. In addition 58 young peoplewere supported to access university leveleducation through their institution.

The focus on education can also be seenfrom the data on children who are not yet atschool and children who have dropped out ofschool. The majority of children who were notat school (36 children in total) could be foundin Sayap Kasih in North Sulawesi (11 boys and7 girls) a childcare institution that cares forchildren with both physical and mental disability.The institution does not provide formaleducation for any of the children due to theseverity of their disability. Other children notattending school were too young to attend pre-school or play groups.

Out of the 36 institutions, 14 childrenwere found to have dropped out of school oronly 0.62% of the total number of children, all

of them boys. 5 children in SOS Desa Tarunain Central Java had dropped out of senior highschool and were at the time followingvocational training in mechanics as well aslearning to drive. 6 children in Al Amin in WestKalimantan dropped out of school after theconflict in Sambas and were following the nonformal curriculum under the Packet A and Bsystem as well as some livelihood training suchas chicken rearing, furniture making andhorticulture. 3 other children in Al Ummah inAceh had entered the institution after theschool admission period and were waiting for

Graph 13 Education Levels


page

86

the next one to be ableto enter school atjunior level.

Of the childrenwho were at school(2,198 children) themajority attendedschool outside of theinstitution in thecommunity (71.52%).Only 9 of the 36childcare institutionswere being runtogether with a schoolor boarding school.Even in the case ofinstitutions which hadtheir own school, this did not mean that all ofthe children in care attended that school asmany of these institutions did not provide forall levels of education through their schools.As a result a number of children, particularlyat senior high school level were attending localschools. The breakdown between children whoattended school within the institution andthose that attended outside can be seen in theGraph below:

As the Graph indicates, the number ofchildren attending school outside of the

institution is more than twice that of childrenwho attend school within the institution.

Home location

The research also looked into the distancebetween the children’s home location and thelocation of the childcare institution they werestaying in. This provides insight into therecruitment practice of the institutions as wellas the distance the child and his or family haveto cover in order to maintain contact. The datacollected in that regard showed whether thechild’s home was located within the samevillage or town, the same sub-district, districtor even province. This does not always providea complete picture of the distance between achild’s home and the location of the institutionas some institutions may be located betweentwo districts or some districts may be smallerthan others but it provides nonetheless anindication of how far children have had to movefrom and to an institution.

The following Graph highlights a numberof findings in relation to the 36 childcareinstitutions assessed. The majority of childrenin institutions came from within the Provincewhere the institution was located. Only 6.5%of children out of the 2,248 children came fromoutside of the Province where their institutionwas located. The majority of those childrenwere found in SOS Desa Taruna in Central Java

Graph 14. School location for the children inthe institutions


page

87(82 children) and Patmos in NTB (25 children).As we will see, SOS Desa Taruna has a policyof moving children to its institutions locatedin other Provinces so that it is more difficultfor children to go home and so that therelationship with the new ’care family’ is madestronger. Patmos on the other hand relies onits network in East Nusa Tenggara to recruitand bring children from West Timor into itsinstitution in Lombok.

While the majority of children (54%) camefrom the same District or Municipality, asignificant number (40%) came from outsideof the District. This means that for every tenchildren in a given institution, there are fivechildren who come from within this Districtand another four children who come fromoutside of that District. As a result for manyof the children in these institutions, home islocated a considerable distance from wherethey live. This is particularly the case inProvinces covering enormous distances suchas West Kalimantan, Maluku and Aceh or wheretravel and access is limited such as NTB whichrequires travel across Islands.

The data also shows that a relatively smallnumber of children (11.3%) came from the sub-district where the institution was located andeven fewer came from the same village (7.3%).This indicates that most institutions are notoperating to provide services for thesurrounding communities but instead bringchildren from communities located aconsiderable distance away.

Length of placement

The length of a child’s placements ininstitutional care vary, of course, according tothe purpose of the placement, the age at whicha child entered the institution and when theinstitution itself began operating. Neverthelessdata on the length of children’s placements canprovide an important indication of whetherplacement in institutional care is generallyconsidered a temporary measure or a longerterm measure.

Unfortunately, as a result of the verylimited data kept by the childcare institutionsassessed, data was not available for all children

Graph 15. Home location


page

88

Graph 16. Length of placement

in relation to when their placements had begunor how long they had been staying in theinstitutions. Even though the research was ableto confirm some of that data through thechildren themselves, there were still 13.5% ofchildren for whom this information was notavailable. The data that was available, however,highlighted a couple of interesting findings thatbe seen from the Graph below

First, childcare institutions are recruitingand replacing children consistently year fromyear with children’s placements ranging from

under a year to over ten years. Secondly, thegreat majority of children (62.4%) had been inthe institutions for over 2 years, indicatingthat placements were generally not temporary.In addition 18% of children had already beenin the institutions for a very prolonged periodof time from 5 to over 10 years. Bearing inmind the crucial changes and stages ofdevelopment children go through from earlychildhood until adulthood, it is clear that manyof these children will have spent a considerablepart of their crucial developmental years withinthe confines of an institution.


page

89

A. Particulars

Name: AliPlace and date of birth: Hitu, 2 February1990Status of Parents: Both alive.Father’s occupation: FishermanMother’s occupation: Trader/vendorNumber of siblings: 1 elder and 3 youngersibling.Religion: IslamLength of time in the institution: 7 years.

Ali was brought to the institution in 2000by a “council” member and friend of hismothers. Ali didn’t say what “council” thisperson was a member of.

B. Reasons for entering the institution.

“The main reason was that I wanted tolearn about my religion,” said Ali when askedhis reasons for entering the institution. Atthe time he didn’t know that it was achildcare institution. Rather, he thought itwas a “pesantren” (Islamic boardingschool). “I was sent here by mama so that Icould become a virtuous boy. Mixing with thevillage children was bad for me.”

C. Life in the institution

1. Entering the institutionAli has been living in the boy’s

dormitory since 2000. When he came tothe institution, he was in grade 1 of StateJunior High School No. 4 in Liang. Whenhe first arrived, it was not as it is now. Alihad imagined that the pesantren would bea luxurious place. He was disappointed asit was nothing more than a rudely builtshed in the forest. “It was in the middle ofthe forest. I cried and just wanted to go home.”Ali was so unhappy in the institution thathe frequently returned home.

LIFE STORY:

Ali, Boy 17 years old. Maluku

2. Going home without permissionOne of the rules of the institution is

that children are forbidden to go homewithout permission. Ali was aware of this,but he nevertheless frequently went home.

After 3 months in the institution Alicould stand it no longer, and decided toreturn home without permission. “I wantedto see mama. Besides, there’s a problem withthe water here,” he said, explaining hisreasons for going home. He set out onthe journey after school. He had no money,but he was determined, and walked alongLiang beach for 14 kilometres. He slept inthe open that night, in the forest. The nextday, he met a gentleman who brought himto his house and gave him food, and Rp50,000 (USD 5) to pay for his fare home.Ali then caught a bus and arrived back athis house at 6 p.m.

“I cried and was upset at mama. Insteadof being happy to see me, mama scolded meand ordered me to go back.”

Up to grade 2 of junior high school,Ali managed to control himself and notgo home until one day he had an accidentand was sent home to recuperate for onemonth.

3. Life at SchoolIn grade 3, Ali began to go astray.

“Smoking, drinking, cannabis, shabu-shabu(crystal methamphetamine), tried it all withmy friends at school,” Ali recalled whenasked what he got up to. Asked if the staffknew what was going on, he replied, “Ofcourse they did not know.” Most of what hehad got up to started out as dabbling.Friends would offer him something andhe would feel constrained to try it due topeer pressure.


page

90

Not only was he smoking anddrinking, and dabbling in shabu-shabu andcannabis, Ali was frequently absent fromschool. “I often can’t be bothered going toschool. In semester 1 of grade 3, I was absent46 times.” The fact that he was frequentlyabsent resulted in him being subjected tovarious forms of violence by his teachers,including slapping, being beaten and beingforced to stand in front of the class. Thepunishment that he most frequentlyreceived was being made to stand in frontof the class. So, in order to avoid this, hewould play truant.

Ali also liked going out with girls. “Withgirls, courting, flirting, try and get in down there(He didn’t explain in detail what he meantby this). If the girl wants it, it will happen.”On the other hand, as the girl in questionwas a diligent student, “I also worked hardat school.” This relationship did not last forlong, however, as Ali had his eye on anothergirl. “I broke up with the first girl. My newgirlfriend was from Liang. Try again, win again.We used to make out in the woods behindthe school.”

Although he was frequently absentfrom school and involved in various formsof truancy, Ali nevertheless managed tograduate from junior high school. Afterhe enrolled in high school, his behaviourdidn’t change very much. One week ingrade 1 in high school, he only put in twoappearances. During school time, he wouldsleep in the woods, and return home tothe institution after school was over. Aliwas also involved in the same forms oftruancy in high school as he had been injunior high school: smoking, hard liquor,and cannabis. Because of his behaviour, hefell behind in all of his subjects and had togo into remedial class. As part of theremedial process, he was ordered to dovarious tasks: “There were seven of us whodidn’t pass. In order to get our grades, wehad to do this and do that. I was ordered bythe biology teacher to cut wood before theexamination, the chemistry teacher orderedme to clear a plantation. I had to attend

remedial mathematics classes in school. Thesociology teacher ordered me to carry stones.I had to do practicals for the computer teacher.The geography teacher made me fix his fenceat home. The art teacher told me to buy nailsand timber. I had to ask mama for Rp15,000.”

After a lot of hard work, Ali passedall of his tests and finally got his reportcard.

After going into grade 2, he continuedto engage in the same behaviour. In fact,he was threatened with having to repeat,“But, thank God, they let me through onprobation.” So, he advanced to grade 2 inhigh school. In grade 2, Ali started to workharder on his school work – “one month,only alpha 3.” “By my third month in grade 2,lots of girls smiling, everyone liked me. I don’tknow what kind of devil was tempting me ... Ijust couldn’t get enough of girls.”

Ali started going out full time withhis new girlfriend. “After we got together, Istarted coming home late a lot, was oftenlate for prayers. We used to go walking onthe beach. We went to her house to meet herparents.” His new girlfriend caused a lotof problems for Ali, however. In fact, hegot into a fight over her as another boywas jealous. “I was attacked by not one, butthree of them. I was jumped on just so that Iwould break up with her.” It was then thathe decided it was time to give his latestgirlfriend up.

4. Disciplinary violations and punishmentsin the institutiona. Cutting the grass in the yard

(some 50 square meters). “My hands werecut and bleeding. I was upset. I wanted to gohome to mama. I had just arrived here at thetime ... was still in grade 1 of junior highschool.” This punishment was imposed onAli for being late for prayers.

b. Cleaning the toilets and filling upthe water tanks. “Even though there waswater, the pressure was very low. So I had tofetch it from the village beside us. I carried iton a cart in cans, and then had to empty it


page

91

into the WC water tanks until they were full(each tank measures approximately ½ m x1 m, while the distance to the well is aroundhalf-an-hour’s walk). After I had finishedfetching the water, I was so tired that I fellasleep straightaway. When I got up again, Iwas really annoyed when I discovered thatthe water in the WC was already finished. Ithad been used for bathing by Z. (anotherchild who had just arrived at the childcareinstitution). This punishment was imposedon Ali for leaving the childcare institutionwithout permission.

c. Rolling the length of the yard (25meters) four times: “rolling along the grounduntil you threw up. I was hit in the stomachas well. I had to hold my breath so as not tobe sick.” “You have to do it four times, even ifyou throw up. You’re not allowed to stop.” Thesame story was related simultaneously byAli and another 3 boys. The punishmentwas imposed on him for fighting.

d. Rolling four times along thelength of the yard (25 m). “My arms werecut”. “I received this punishment for fighting.”

e. Slapping and kicking. Thispunishment was imposed on Ali as he wassuspected of having made a bomb. Heexplained what happened as follows: On2 April 2006 (the South Moluccan Republicflag is frequently hoisted during April), he

had made two bombs from firecrackers.He had planned to use the bombs to catchfish in the river, but had to cancel his planas the river had been in flood. He had thenhidden the bombs in the bush behind thechildcare institution. However, one of themhad exploded. The staff in the childcareinstitution had been worried that theauthorities would suspect that theinstitution was being used for terrorism,given that the South Mollucan Republicflag is frequently hoisted in April.

f. Slapping/beating and kicking. Aliwas subjected to this for being out at nightwithout permission. He had returned at12 midnight.

This last punishment received by Alihad caused controversy in the institution,with some being in favour and someagainst. The case had been brought beforethe student council.

After this life story was written, Ali wasexpelled from the childcare institution as it

was discovered that he had spoken onenight through the window with one of thenew girls who had entered the institution(The institution observes total separation

between the sexes). After this incident, theinstitution also decided to send home all of

the girls and decided not to care for girlsany longer.


page

92

Footnotes:1 SOS Desa Taruna in Bali only cares for children from the Hindu di Bali hanya di huni oleh anak-anak yang beragama

Hindu. Menurut Kepala Panti pendirian SOS Desa Taruna di Indonesia disesuaikan dengan nilai budaya setempat.Saat ini sedang dirintis SOS Desa Taruna di Aceh.

2 See SC/DEPSOS, Rapid Assessment, p. 283 See www.dharmais.or.id4 Initial report to the Committee on the Rights of the Child, Indonesia CRC/C/3/Add.10 (14 January 1993)5 The budget for building maintenance and renovation in 2005 for Wahyu Yoga Dharma was particularly important as

a result of assistance provided by the Provincial administration that year to cover such costs.6 Martin and Sudrajat, 2006: 477 See Luhpuri, Subardhini, and Yuliani, Pamardi Utomo: Quality Care Report, Jakarta, Save the Children, Depsos,

and Unicef, 2007.8 Children are defined under Child Protection Law No 23 (2002) as people under the age of 18 years of age and they

constituted over 94% of those in care in the childcare institutions.9 SC/DEPSOS: Rapid Assessment, p. 5010 See Yuliani, Subardhini, and Luhpuri, SOS Desa Taruna: Quality Care Report, Jakarta, Save the Children, Depsos,

and Unicef, 2007.

“Someone That Matters” | VIII. Values and Aims of the Childcare Institutions

page

93

VIII. Values and Aims of theChildcare Institutions

THE DEVELOPMENT of the ’vision and mission’ statement and ’aims and objectives’ for aninstitution is the main opportunity for an institution to articulate not only what it is aiming toachieve for children but also the values it represents. In many ways, it also provides an insightabout what the particular institution sees as the desitable outcome of childhood as well as howit understands its role in achieving this. In reverse, it has been pointed out that what happens tochildren after they leave institutional care is evidence of how the institution had ’thought’ orenvisioned what these children were to become.1

As we have seen in relation to the situation of childcare facilities throughout Indonesia, theoverwhelming majority of these institutions have been developed and are owned and run byprivate organisations, whether local or under the auspices of national or provincial networks.Most of the organizations running these institutions are faith based and as such, it can be expectedthat the values and approach underpinning the services they provide are a reflection of the


page

94

particular religious community that hasestablished the institution. Yet, this researchfound within the sample of institutions that itassessed across 6 provinces considerablediversity in terms of these institutions’ viewsof themselves and of the children that areunder their responsibility, as well as the rolesthat they are aiming to fulfil towards thosechildren. Children themselves often had theirown ideas and perspectives of the role theirinstitution and their placement was meant tofulfil. It was clear that the particular valuesunderpinning each institution determined notonly what services were provided but theapproach and professional practice taken andformed the basis for the relationship betweenstaff, children and families as well as betweenthe particular institution and the communityaround it.

As we have seen, the sample of childcareinstitutions chosen included 8 Government runinstitutions and 28 privately run ones. 25clearly identified themselves as faith based with16 Islamic ones, 4 Protestant, 3 Catholic, 1Buddhist and 1 Hindu childcare institutions.Another 9 including some of the Governmentones did not put a particular religion as theirfounding basis but nonetheless served onlycommunities from a particular faith orincorporated the values and practice of thatfaith in their approach to services. Interestingly,almost all of the Government run institutionsprovided services for children from a particularfaith (Islam except Lohoraung in NorthSulawesi that cares for children from theChristian communities), even where they werelocated within more diverse religiouscommunities. The exception to this was UPRSin West Kalimantan which took an approachthat specifically sought to support bothreligious and ethnic diversity. SOS Desa Tarunain Central Java was the only other children’sinstitution which articulated a multi faithapproach, basing its services and approachesincluding the selection of its foster mothersto ensure that at least Christian and Muslimcarers are provided.

Out of the 36 childcare institutionsassessed only 8 had a specific statement of

purpose or ‘vision and mission’ written for theinstitution itself. For a childcare institution,articulating clear and agreed terms of referencefor its work through a written ‘vision andmission’ that specifies the values, aims andobjectives of the services it aims to provide isan important step to ensure that the basis forits work and the role it sees itself fulfilling inrelation to children is clearly spelt out. It alsoprovides children and their families with animportant clarification of what to expect fromthe placement as well as what its aims are.Having a written vision and mission is also animportant requirement for the delivery ofprofessional services for children as it shouldensure that staff and those involved in therunning of that institution know what they aremeant to be implementing. Its existence andthe way it is formulated, disseminated andreviewed is an important indicator of how aninstitution sees itself and the level ofunderstanding that staff and children have inthe aims that are meant to be achieved. Wherestaff and children are involved in its formulation,review or in discussions around its aims andobjectives, there is likely to be a much higherlevel of understanding and agreement aboutwhat the institutions stands for.

Four of the institutions that had written‘vision and mission’ specific to the institutionwere government institutions, probablyreflecting the fact that having a ‘vision andmission’ is one of the basic requirements tobe fulfilled under the Government rules forsocial institutions.2

In addition, 18 childcare institutions hadsome form of ’vision and mission’ but thesehad been devised by their parent organisation,generally without the involvement of the staffof that particular institution. On the whole,these were not specific to the servicesprovided by the institution itself but insteadreflected the general values and aims of thesocial organisation that established thechildcare institution. There were exceptions tothat, though, with Ina Theresia, Patmos, SOSDesa Taruna, having specific written ‘vision andmission’ statements but which were devisedand written by their parent organisations. The


page

95

majority of institutions though, had ‘borrowed’the generic statement of aims and principlesfrom their parent organizations. This wasparticularly the case for Islamic organisationsrunning a childcare institution together witheducational facilities such as a boarding schooland as a part of their broader religious andeducational programmes. All of theMuhammadiyah institutions as well asinstitutions affiliated or run under NU, NWand the Hidayatullah network used thestatement of purpose and values from theirparent organisations. This was also the casefor Al Hidayah, Caleb House, Nurul Ikhlas, AlAmin, Ibnu Tamiyah, Dharma Laksana, DarulHikmah and Al Muthadien.

SOS Desa Taruna was in a differentposition as it is one of a number of childcarefacilities run by SOS Kinderdorf internationally(including 6 in Indonesia) under the sameprinciples and standards.

Virtually none of the institutions that hadsome form of vision/mission or statement ofintent had involved staff or children in theirconception, review or even in a process ofdiscussion or internalisation about what theymeant. Ina Theresia in Maluku seemed to besubject to some form of review and evaluation,at least by the heads of its parent organisationat the organisation’s annual meeting. Some staffat Huke Ina, a government institution in Malukuhad been involved in developing theprogramme statement from the ProvincialOffice of Social Services that was then used asa ‘vision and mission for that institution. Thesewere very much the exceptions. Generally, thechildcare institutions had not seen theformulation of aims and values as somethingwhich could become a vehicle for ensuringunderstanding, agreement and a joint sense ofpurpose by the staff and even less by thechildren it cares for.

Eight other institutions had no written orclear statement of intent/purpose or vision andmission. A further 2 institutions had originallyhad such a statement at the time when theinstitution was established but could not findit and only remembered it in broad lines.

“Based on the explanation given by Mrs L.(the Manager), it was difficult to clearlyascertain what the vision and mission of theinstitution were. She explained that vision andmission statements had been formulated bythe management in the past, and even postedup, but the statements now appeared to belost.”

It was clear that a number of thestatements of visions and mission of theinstitution itself or of the parent organisationhad been formulated quite a long time ago, inmany cases when the institution was firstestablished as in the case of Dorkas forexample in 1934 or Dr. J. Lukas in 1974. Inmost cases, no further revision or process ofreview had taken place to identify whether thestatement still reflected appropriately thevalues and approach underpinning servicesprovided by the childcare institutions.

Generally only the head or manager ofthe institution was able to articulate the valuesand aims of the institution. In many cases staffhad not been provided with clear informationas to the aims of the assistance and werefocusing on carrying out the set tasks they hadbeen given in the institution without linkingtheir role to an overall objective in relation tothe children in their care. In Nirmala, forexample, when asked about the aims of theinstitution, one of the carer replied, “I just domy job as directed by the head. If I’m told to takea child to the doctor, that’s what I do. If I’m told tomeet a child’s teacher at school, then that’s whatI do. If there’s nothing for me to do, then I just sitaround the office.”

In Suci Hati, staff and carers also admittedthat they did not know about the aims of theinstitution, “Don’t know ... just ask the manager”.

Certain common characteristics in termsof how these childcare institutions understoodtheir role as well as the way these werearticulated could be identified across the 36childcare institutions. They provided animportant insight into how these institutionsviewed the children they cared for and whatoutcomes they were aiming to reach for thesefor these children.


page

96

Institutions’ vision of their role and the childrenthey care for

Generally, all of the institutions subscribedto what could be called the concept of the“Panti Asuhan Anak”, a childcare institutioncoming under a social welfare framework witha particular focus on the orphans, the fatherlessor motherless children and children who aredeemed ‘neglected’ or coming from familiesthat cannot provide for them. The term’childcare institution’ or ’institution that caresfor children (Panti Asuhan) was used by allinstitutions except SOS Desa Taruna whichuses the ‘children’s village’ concept of its parentorganization and UPRS which is organisedaround a multi-services technical assistancecomplex comprising a separate section calledthe YPAT, ‘Orphans and Neglected Children’.

In many instances, this focus wasarticulated right at the front of the building,with the institution’s signboard specificallymentioning ‘orphans’, the fatherless (sometimesmotherless children) together with childrenwho are deemed ‘neglected’.

As we have seen in the Profile ofInstitutions section, in reality few of theseinstitutions actually care primarily for childrenwho are ‘orphaned’. The concept of‘orphanhood’ remains however very strongboth in terms of how an institution projectsitself within the community and its network

of support but also in terms of the way theinstitutions views the children it cares for. Theinstitutions generally raise funds on the basisthat they care for orphaned children orchildren who have been abandoned by theirfamilies. This is especially the case in relationto the childcare institutions that are run byIslamic organisations as assistance to the‘orphan’ is understood to be a crucialresponsibility of all Muslim and is the focus ofhuge philantropy, particularly around thelebaran period as we have seen above.

As was explained by the head of thechildcare institution Al Amin in WestKalimantan,

“In reality, myself and my family we’re just‘hitching a ride’ with the children here. When thedonors come here to give assistance, they do sobecause these children are orphans ordisadvantaged children. It is written in the SurahAl-Maun that we are required to raise and provideassistance to orphans, fatherless and motherlesschildren and the indigent. That’s why I’m willing tomanage this institution.”

In addition to children who are ‘orphaned’or ‘neglected’, most of the institutionsrecognised poverty as a key factor and ‘poorchildren’ (anak fakir miskin) were also oftenidentified as a target group. Poverty is seen tobe a major obstacle to families being able tocare for their children. Care in this case is


page

97

mainly equated with being able to provide forthem in particular ensuring their education butalso adequate conditions of life, religious andmoral guidance as well as an environmentwhere ‘useful’ and ‘good’ children can develop.Children were generally perceived by theseinstitutions to be coming from families thathad failed, either through the death of a parentor due to their lack of ‘capacity’ to care fortheir children. As a result, the institutionstended not to see continuing relationships withthe child’s family as crucial either for the child’swell being or for ensuring an easier transitionback into their communities and families afterthey leave care. Parents and families weredeemed to have relinquished their parental‘rights’ upon the placement and given as littlerole as possible in decisions involving thechildren unless the child was seriously sick orexpelled or until the child graduated when thefamily was then expected to take over fully itsrole and responsibility.

Some of the institutions were establishedor took a particular focus on providingassistance to victims of disasters or conflict(Pepabri in West Kalimantan, Caleb House inMaluku, Suci Hati and Darul ’Ulum Al-Munnawwarah in Aceh). These institutions,however, still saw their role very much asproviding assistance to children who wereorphaned, who had lost carers or whosesituation was negatively affected as a result ofthese crises. The approach to services takenby these institutions did not differ significantlyfrom that of others assisting similar groups ofchildren in a non emergency context. Oneinstitution, however, Caleb House in Malukudid provide specific psycho-social support tochildren who were deemed to be ‘traumatised’as the result of the conflict.

The vision of children as needing to bedeveloped into ‘useful’ human beings could alsobe found in many of the childcare institutionsassessed, regardless of faith or ownership.Children’s ‘usefulness’ was seen in some casesin relation to their families and communities.In Al-Ikhlas for example, the head of theinstitution saw its role as, “We want to turn theseneglected children into people who are useful totheir parents and society.” In relation to families,

children were deemed to be useful when theywere no longer ‘a burden on their family’ orwhen they became independent and selfsufficient adults who could earn a living, havethe skills to get a job and contribute back tothe family.

This was the approach taken for exampleat Wahyu Yoga Dharma, “The institution tries tohelp these children until they are able to get workso that when they leave here they will be able tohelp their families, not be burdens again to them.”

Woro Wiloso, a government childcareinstitution that cares for girls focused on theirpotential,“We focus on girls by treating them insuch a way as to make them mature, bring themup as skilled, productive and useful people tothemselves, their families and society.”

Producing children that are ‘useful’ to theircommunities, their nation or country was alsohow a number of institutions viewed their role,as articulated for example in a number ofgovernment run institutions such as PamardiUtomo, “so that they become members of societywho can live properly, with a full sense ofresponsibility to themselves, their families andsociety. We want to mold human beings withmature personalities, who are dedicated and skilledso that they are able to support themselves andtheir families.”

The same concept was also found in anumber of the privately run childcareinstitutions. In Al Hidayah in Maluku, the aimsof the institution were defined as, “1) improvingthe quality of human resources from the religious,educational, cultural and knowledge perspectives;2) to produce self-reliant children who are of useto themselves, their religion, society, the nation andthe state.”

Some of the institutions saw their role insupporting the development of children whoare ‘useful’ to the nation and their country interms of them being the ‘next generation’, asin the case of Dharma Laksana which aims to“to participate in developing the younger generationin NTB through education.”

This concept of preparing children to bethe next generation was found in many of thefaith based institutions. Some saw their role as


page

98

developing the next generation of religiousleaders, thinkers and activists, including ‘cadres’for their own networks. The institutions underthe Hidayatullah network, for example,including Al Mutadien in North Sulawesi andHidayatullah in Maluku were specifically focusedon transforming children in their care into‘cadres’ which will work for their organisation,“our mission is to look after, teach and educatefatherless and motherless children, neglectedchildren, so that they become a generation that ispious, creative, clever, and self-sufficient in theirroles as potential future leaders.”

Similarly, Darul Aitam’s focus was that ofthe Nahdatul Wathan (NW) network underwhich it was established, “The objective of thisinstitution is the same as that of Nahdatul Wathan:to create Muslim cadres who can propagate Islamwherever they are. This is our mission as set out bythe founder of Nahdatul Wathan.”

Muhammadiyah’s vision, used by itschildcare institutions across Indonesia includingthe ones assessed in Aceh and Central Java isto “To enlighten the nation by teaching pure andunadulterated Islam based on the Koran andHaddiths.” It also aims to develop through itsinstitutions the next generation of its membersas was explained by the staff in MuhammadiyahMeulaboh, “In addition, we are involved in groomingthe children to become Muhammadiyah cadres inAceh.”

Other institutions saw their role assupporting the development of ‘clever’ childrenthrough formal and religious education so theycould make a contribution to assist the nation.

Eben Ezer, for example, articulated itsvision and mission in terms of,

“1. Developing the institution as a place ofreligious education for the children;

2. Developing the institution as a place of familyeducation for children who lack the guidanceof their parents;

3. Developing the intellects of our childrenthrough formal education in public schools,accompanied by regular guidance.”

Similarly Wahyu Yoga Dharma spoke of“playing a role in improving the intellect of thenation”

Others institutions spoke of their role inreducing what they saw as ‘ignorance andbackwardness’ resulting from poverty as withNurul Ikhlas,

“Reducing ignorance, backwardness andpoverty among neglected children, orphans andindigent children.”, and with Ina Theresia, “Toovercome poverty and social backwardness throughguidance, counseling and education.”.

This was also the approach taken byPepabri but with a particular focus on childrencoming from isolated communities in WestKalimantan, in particular from the Dayakcommunities, “My intention is straightforward –to help develop the intellects of children fromisolated areas, such as Sangguledo, Ngabang, RasauJaya, Sungai Nangka and so forth.”

In addition to ‘useful’ and ‘educatedchildren’, most of the faith based institutionsemphasized their role in ‘producing’ childrenwho are good human beings, religious, obedientand disciplined. For example, Ibnu Taimiyah aimsto “to create human beings who are of moral,skilled and cultured.”

Ina Theresia’s also stated its aims in termsof,

“ a. To ensure that the children become well-rounded, pious, self-reliant, resilient,creative, humble, honest, responsible anddisciplined persons.

b. To ensure that the children develop adeep sense of gratitude for the gifts andblessings bestowed on them by God, andbecome people characterized by love anda willingness to forgive.”

Darul ’Ulum Al-Munnawwarah saw its roleas “…caring for, guiding and educating them tobecome good human beings.”

Nur Ilahi, in common with many of theinstitutions run by islamic organisations aimedto create children who are “of good character,pious and competent so that they will be able toface the challenges of life on their own.” The focuson children becoming ‘good’ and ‘religious’ wasalso found in Hidayatullah in Maluku asexplained by its manager, “Many parents sendtheir children here so that they will grow up as


page

99

pious human beings and not be swayed by badinfluences.”

The childcare institutions run by religiousorganizations that work towards thepropagation of their faith also saw their rolein terms of ‘saving children’ and ensuring theirproper integration into their particular faith.This was particularly found in the context ofWest Kalimantan were the conversion ofDayak communities to Christianity or Islam isstill seen as an important process. Nur Ilahifor example, focuses on ‘muallaf’ children (newconverts to Islam) so that they can “properlyabide by Islamic teachings.” This institution worksto ensure that they become fully integratedinto Islam including by changing their namesand in some cases discouraging contacts withfamilies which may still be from anotherreligious or have retained Dayak beliefs andpractices.

Eben-Haezer, also in West Kalimantan, wasestablished “to save children from the interior(remote location). This process is connected withthree important aspects: welfare, education andreligion. This is because the institution was foundedas part of the Christian mission to help Dayakchildren from the interior who are unable to receivean education as a result of poverty, or lack offacilities or access.”

Suprisingly for institutions whose primaryfocus is meant to be the ‘care’ of children andthe replacement of the parental role, very fewinstitutions articulated a vision that includedchildren who are loved or cared for. Thoseinstitutions that did speak of love saw this aspart of a broader concept of religious love,the love of god and the love of others aspreached within those religions. Prajapati forexample in North Sulawesi articulated its visionin terms of the broader Buddhist teaching of“promoting universal love”

Dharma Laksana in West Nusa Tenggarauses Hindu precepts including the ‘giving oflove’ as the basis for its approach and the raysof the sun as symbol of that love that reachesall equally. Children were taught verses and asong referring to that sun which shines everyday on all, without discrimination and withoutfail, to help them internalize the values of that

universal love. Caleb House, a childcareinstitution focused on caring for children fromthe Christian communities affected by theconflict in Maluku emphasized also theimportance of religious love in relationsbetween people and communities,

“The socialization of the concept of loveis also carried out by posting in the institutionadmonishments such as “Love Everyone” and“Stop Hatred”. “Love” is also the theme of thereligious services held every night.”

Sayap Kasih in North Sulawesi, aninstitution that cares for children with ‘double’disability also saw children in its care as being‘in need of love’ but it integrated this principleinto its approach to caring for children ratherthan as an objective to be fulfilled by itsinstitution.

Interestingly, only Dr. J. Lukas in NorthSulawesi and SOS Desa Taruna in Central Javaspecifically articulated their roles in terms ofchildren ‘being’ and ‘feeling’ loved or the crucialattachment role of the family being somehowreplaced. Dr. J. Lukas articulated this in termsof replacing the ‘warmth of the family’ that thesechildren were not able to get. SOS DesaTaruna’s vision is that “Every child belongs to afamily and grows with love, respect and security”and therefore it sees its role as “We buildfamilies for children in need, we help them shapetheir own futures and we share in the developmentof their communities”

Generally, though, very little reference wasto be found in the visions and aims of thesechildcare institutions about children asindividuals that needed both care and a secureand loving environment to grow and developfully. As we will see below, this reflects not onlythe way these institutions see their role butalso how they prioritize and deliver theirservices to the children in their care.

In addition to the values and overall aimsput forwards by the childcare institutionsassessed, some patterns could be found interms of the actual approach taken in orderto achieve those aims.

The emphasis on children whose familieswere deemed unable to provide for them


page

100

meant that the institutions saw their role asprimarily about ensuring that children’s needswere fulfilled. This was generally articulated interms of food, shelter and education. Many ofthe institutions assessed used a broad socialwelfare framework that spoke of ensuringaccess to basic services, particularly education,for that vulnerable or ‘unfortunate’ group ofchildren.

In Aceh, Al Ummah’s provided a verytypical statement of this approach, which wasto “To fulfill physical needs, including clothing, food,shelter, formal education and healthcare.”

Similar explanations were given by stafffrom the great majority of childcare institutionsacross the 6 provinces:

Darurrokhmah (Central Java)

“So, the background here is that the childrencome from middle to low income families. Wealso have fatherless and motherless childrenwho haven’t been receiving the attention theyneed, particularly in the educational sphere.”

DORKAS ( North Sulawesi)

“To provide assistance to indigent, neglectedand orphaned children so that they can receivea proper education.”

Huke Ina (Maluku)

“The objective of the institution, in the eyes ofthe staff and foster families, is to provide forindigent children so that their educationalneeds can be fulfilled.”

Dharma Laksana (NTB)

“To provide for the education of orphaned,motherless, fatherless and neglected childrenin general, and particularly children from aBalinese ethnic background in NTB, so thatthey will be self-reliant in the future.”

Muhammadiah Meulaboh (Aceh)

“Many of the children here come from poorvillage families which are unable to send themto school. By living in this institution, they areable to receive an education.”

Nurul Ikhlas (Maluku)

“To continue to provide services to the childrenso that they are not neglected, particularly so

that they can continue at school up to at leastsenior high school level. In fact, if we are ableto and the children are willing, we will educatethem up to degree level.”

Bearing in mind the primary focus of theseinstitutions on developing ‘useful’ and‘intelligent’ or ‘clever’ children that couldbecome the next generation or couldcontribute more directly to their families andcommunities, it is not surprising that providingeducation was seen as the primary aim ofvirtually all the institutions assessed. This wasseen both in terms of providing formal but alsoinformal education (mainly religious but alsoin some cases vocational training).

The two childcare institutions that weremost specifically focused on the care giving role,SOS Desa Taruna (Central Java) and Dr. J. Lukas(North Sulawesi) also included access toeducation as a key service but within an overallframework of care giving in a ‘familyenvironment’ rather than the actual focus ofthe services. Sayap Kasih (North Sulawesi)which cares for children with both mental andphysical disability did not see formal educationat all as being a possibility for children in itscare.

As can be seen from the quotes above,education is not only prioritised but otherneeds (food, a place to stay, care) are oftenseen as by products of children being able toaccess education, or enabling factors ratherthan as key priorities in themselves. Childrenneed a place to stay and food and care so thatthey can access education effectively, seemedto be the approach taken by many of thechildcare institutions. This is often reflected interms of the language used by the institutionswhen referring to the ‘care’ of children in theircharge in particular the use of the terms‘menampung’ (to provide accommodation/tostore) or ‘memelihara’ (to raise, to rear, alsoused in relation to a pet’). Again this had asignificant impact in terms of how such serviceswere provided and what skills and resourceswere prioritized within the majority of theseinstitutions as will be seen in the ProfessionalCare section of this report.


page

101

The childcare institutions run by faithbased organisations prioritised in particularreligious education and practices in the servicesand approach taken. This was particularly thecase for those institutions that are combiningan islamic religious boarding school (Pesantren)together with a child care institution as is thecase for example with Darul Ulum Al-Munnawwarah, Darul Hikmah, Darul Aitam,Ibnu Taimyiah, Al Muthadien and Hidayatullah.The emphasis in those institutions is clearlyon Islamic teaching and practices and there areoften only subtle differences between thesituation of children who live in the boardingschools as regular students and children whoare deemed to be part of the ‘child careinstitution’. Children in the Pesantren live therepermanently from school age until theygraduate and as such the services that areprovided in terms of a place to stay, food andeducation are similar for all children. Thedifference seemed to lie more in terms of thestatus of the children who were there as partof the ’childcare institution’ and theirresponsibilities, as well as the fact that theirfamilies did not have to make financial or inkind contribution towards the costs of theireducation.3 As a result, these institutions sawreligious education and practice as the priorityfor all of the children no matter what thereasons for their placement were.

Other faith based institutions madereligious education and practice part of theservices provided and an element of theapproach taken rather that its primary aim aswas the case in the Muhammadiyah runinstitutions, Prajapati, Eben Haezer, Patmos andDharma Lakasana among others.

Across the board, though, theprioritisation of education both formal andinformal had clear implications in terms of howthe ‘childcare’ role by the institutions wasunderstood and implemented. In particular, afocus on education meant that only childrenof school age were generally identified aspotential target for recruitment but also, andcrucially, that the placement itself was seen asbeing needed for the entire period of the child’seducation. Within that framework, a child’splacement was deemed permanent unless

fundamental rules of the institutions werebroken or the child was not able to progressat school in which case the boy or girl wouldbe sent back to his or her family. The timingand parameters of that placement weretherefore totally set by the educationalobjective and virtually no review of thatplacement was deemed necessary or evendesirable within that period of time.

Children’s own perspectives of the aims of theirinstitutions

An important way of understanding howa childcare institution articulates andunderstand its role is by the way the childrenin its care understand what services they aremeant to be getting and why they are there.As was mentioned above, none of the childrenacross the 36 institutions had been involved inthe development of aims and missionstatements nor in actual discussion and reviewabout their purposes and relevance to theirlives. Nonetheless, children in the institutionsgenerally had some understanding of why theywere there, either in terms of what they hadbeen told by the staff or in relation to theirown personal experiences.

Children’s perspectives on theirplacements

Nur Ilahi“to pay for the schooling of children whoseparents don’t have enough money”“to look after the children and educate them”The children also said that they had to helpout with the work in the institution as oneof the institution’s objectives. This was clearto the children from the obligation of everychild to perform picket duty.“To help with the work in the institution ...”Muhammadiyah Lokhsamawe“To educate orphans”“To reduce the number of poor and neglectedchildren”“To provide love for neglected children, andproduce Muhammadiyah cadres for thefuture”


page

102

“To educate orphans so that they becomepeople of good character”“I asked grandma to bring me to the institution... so that I could go to school ... I had heard ..it was good in the institution ... you didn’t haveto work like in the village ... in the village youhave to wash, cook ... in the institution ... youonly have to sweep up, mop the floor”“I was brought here by dad ... I wanted to goto school ... schooling gives his broaderhorizons”Huke Ina “Yeah, there are some things mum and dadaren’t able to afford ... pay for school ... they’renot able to afford it.”Muhammadiyah Meulaboh“I came to the institution to learn ... if I studiedat home, there’s no one to teach me. Mumonly taught me a bit .. how to read ... didn’treally understand either.” “I was lazy at school in my village ... I didn’tlearn anything.”“Here I can learn and gain experience ... whenI go back to my village, I can teach my family... some of our families have no education ...we’re looking for a new family in theinstitution.” Darul ’Ulum Al-Munnawwarah“to strengthen our faith, learn English, Arabic,Japanese, to develop ourselves so that weknow more about religion, study the Koran,read the holy books, be able to recite theKoran by heart, and know about what is “halal”and what isn’t.”“These values are what appeal to me, becauseI will be good at religion. I want to make myparents happy. If we can study the Koran, ourparents will be happy.”Ina Theresia “To take in orphans and children whoseparents can’t afford to send them to school.” Caleb House“To take in orphans”“Because my mum died”Nurul Ikhlas“To educate children”

“To go to school”“ To work”.Eben Heazer“To take in poor children, children who haveno parents”UPRS“So that orphans can go to school”Ibnu Taimiyah“Since my adoptive mother died and myadoptive father remarried, I’m always beingscolded and forgotten about. I had to quitschool two years ago. In the end, my sibling,who also lives in the institution, told me I couldmove in here and get free schooling. Whatelse can an an orphan like me do?”“I found out about this place from a friend ofmy parents ... he said it was a pesantren butthat I wouldn’t have to pay as it doubled upas a childcare institution ... the requirement isthat your parents have no money ... so ourparents don’t have to pay.”Darul Aitam“The objective of the institution is to groomcadres who will spread the Islamic faith.”“to create cadres to continue the struggle ofNW, that is to disseminate Islamic teachingsbased on the “sunah waljamaah.”“ So children can become NW cadres” “We’re here because we want to becomeNW cadres”AL Muthadien“I want to become a “kyai” (imam) ... I wantto become an ustad (Islamic teacher) lateron…”“I want to become an ustadzah (Islamicfemale teacher)”Al-Ikhlas“I don’t have anything, I can be helped.”Wahyu Yoga Dharma“... I want to become someone that matters”“... I came to the institution on my own accord.I wanted to become self-reliant, to be able tohelp my parents rather than be a burden onthem.”


page

103

Child Protection Law No 23 (2002) or thetechnical standards developed by theGovernment. Even fewer had actually beenmade aware of their implications for their workand the protection of children in their care.While government owned institutions seemedmore likely to have been given a copy of theChild Protection Law or of some of theDEPSOS guidelines, generally these wereshared only with the head of the institution orthe staff that had attended a meeting. It wasstriking that even where some of the staff hadattended a specific training on the ChildProtection Law or in some cases a training bythe provincial Office of Social Affairs on thestandards for the care of children in and outof institutions, (in Caleb House, Suci Hati,Nirmala, Al Hidayah for examples), thereseemed to be little understanding of theimplication of these standards for their workand very little knowledge retained.

As was explained by the Manager ofNirmala in Aceh “I’ve participated in a numberof training courses on child protection, but thetraining provided was inadequate ... only lasted anaverage of two days. Got back to the institutionand there was no follow up. That’s the way it is,wasting time. After I finished the courses, I putaway the materials and basically forgot everything.”

In Huke Ina in Maluku, for example, theManager had actually borrowed a copy of theChild Protection Law from one of the childrenin its care who had once attended a workshopin Ambon. No copy from any of the policiesand guidelines produced by DEPSOS onchildcare institutions were available, however,and the institution had not developed any ofits own guidelines to support the carers.

Even in those institutions that had a copyof at least one of the relevant policies or laws,there had been few efforts to discuss thosewith staff or raise awareness of staff about theirimplication for their work. The copies tendedto be in the hands of the manager and therewas little indication of a recognition that theserules were relevant or even applicable to theirinstitution. In Eben-Haezer for example, theresearch found that,

Children clearly made the link betweentheir placement in care and the need to accesseducation because their families were not ableto afford the school costs but also in terms ofbeing able to access a better quality ofeducation. In addition, access to education waslinked by them to the realization of their hopesfor the future, their ability to find work, helptheir families as well as make them proud.Children were clearly aware that they weredeemed by the institution to come fromparticularly disadvantaged familie, eithereconomically or socially and this resulted inthem seeing their placement as a means to‘better themselves’. The institutions’ recurrentuse of the terms ‘orphan’, ‘fatherless’, ‘neglectedchild’ terminology certainly seemed toreinforce children’s view of themselves as beinginherently flawed and in need of improvement.In many of the institutions this seemed to beemphasized to encourage feelings of gratitudeamong the children, so that whatever servicesor assistance was provided was seen by themas a bonus and received gratefully, withoutquestion. It also left little space for theseinstitutions to recognize the range of situationschildren actually came from and the verydiffering needs that these may entail either interms of economic support or care andprotection.

Knowledge and understanding of childcarestandards

As we saw in Section I, the IndonesianGovernment ratified the Convention on theRights of the Child in 1990 and adopted a ChildProtection law in 2002 which aimed partly tointegrate the Convention’s standards intonational law. The Ministry of Social Affairs hasalso developed a range of directives andtechnical standards that relate to the care ofchildren both in and out of the institutions. Itwas therefore important to ascertain to whatextent these standards were known andunderstood as well as to what extent they werebeing implemented in practice.

The assessement showed that very fewof the institutions were aware of theConvention on the Rights of the Child, the


page

104

“The institution had a photocopied copyof Law No. 23 of 2003 on Child Protection.It did not have any of the guidelines ormanuals issued by Depsos. Save for themanager and carer in charge of the boys,none of the staff knew anything about LawNo. 23 of 2003 on the Protection ofChildren.” 5

In UPRS, while copies of relevant legislationand guidelines had recently been received, andone staff had even followed a socialisationprogramme for the Child Protection Law,

“Nevertheless, no efforts were made bythe carers and staff to jointly discuss andstudy these. Rather, the books had beenput away in a cabinet by a staff member.”

The staff that tended to attend trainingswhen those were available seemed to begenerally the Head of the Institution or itsManager and in a few cases some senior staff.It seemed that such trainings were seen as notrelevant to staff that actually had most of thecontact with children on a day to day basis orthat the sheer lack of staff in the institutionmeant that it would always be the same persongoing for training. In Al Amin for example, theManager explained,

“Yes, Miss ... only myself and the treasurer(get to go), but the treasurer is always busywith his regular work. So, automatically it’sme that responds to invitations and trainingcourses. So far I’ve participated in trainingon improving the capacity of institutionstaff, child protection, marketing, and someother things. I was given a copy of theConvention on the Rights of the Child andthe Child Protection Law. So, the courseshelped improve my knowledge. But I’venever received the childcare institutionguidelines and manuals from Depsos. Anofficer from the provincial social affairsoffice promised to give me photocopies ofthem after one training course, but I’ve stillnever received them.”

Similarly in Dorkas, the head of theinstitution had recently followed a training onthe Child Protection Law but no other staffhad ever attended any.

“As it happens, we’ve just be on a trainingcourse last month. Mr. T delivered thetraining. If we didn’t show up, we would geta telling-off ... I’m still studying thelegislation.”

In the majority of institutions, knowledgeof even the existence of relevant standards andpolicies was often totally missing and there wasvirtually no awareness that institutions mayactually be bound to follow certain rules orlaws.

The response from the Manager of DarulAitam, in that regard was quite typical,

“Regulations on the protection of children?We don’t have them, I don’t reallyunderstand.” The carer responsible forthe boys said that he had heard talkabout child protection, but not directly,and admitted that he had never read therelevant materials. “Yeah, I heard about iton TV, in the newspapers, governmentofficials talking during events. But I don’tknow anything about it in detail.” A similaradmission was made by the assistantcarer for the girls, “Don’t know. I’ve neverseen any books about child protection.”

Similarly with Darul ’Ulum Al-Munnawwarah,

“...It’s like this, Miss, we’ve only beenestablished for 3 years, so we don’t knowabout the childcare guidelines andregulations.” (interview with the head ofinstitution)

In fact, with the notable exception of SOSDesa Taruna in Central Java, there seemed tobe across all of the institutions very littleawareness that running or working in achildcare institution may require some specificskills or knowlege or may be regulated by someprofessional standards. In Ina Theresia as in mostother childcare institutions, the idea ofstandards and professional skills in the contextof caring for children in an institution hadsimply not come up,

“Everything done as regards childcare inIna Theresia is based solely on generalknowledge. According to one of the


page

105

nuns, her three years of education inthe convent and at the Maria Mediatrixdiocesan college had taught her nothingabout the theory and techniques ofchildcare in an institutional setting.”

Three institutions did refer to children’srights in relation to their work. Harapan, agovernment run childcare institution in NTBreferred to children’s rights in its vision andmission: “The enjoyment of children’s rights and

needs such as the right to life, to grow and develop,to protection and to participate.”

Despite this, it was surprising to find thatneither its manager nor most of its staff knewabout the Convention or about the ChildProtection Law. This was particularly ironicbecause “The building located next to thechildcare institution’s office in the samecomplex housed the Nusa Tenggara Baratprovincial Child Protection Body (LPA). In fact,the institution had in the past had a child victimof violence referred to it.”

In reality the reference to children’s rightsand participation had been introduced by twostaff, one of whom had graduated from theGovernment’s School of Social Work (STKS),who had tried to integrate this learning intothe operation of the institution including itsstatement of purpose and rules. Neverthelessit was clear that in practice, there was generallylittle understanding among other staff of theimplications of those standards to their workor to their approach to care.

Children’s rights were also mentioned bythe manager of the childcare institution inUPRS, the Government institution in West

Kalimantan, “the objective of this institution is tofulfil the rights and needs of children, that is, theright to life, to grow and develop, to protection andto participate.” This was not reflected, however,either in the stated aims of the UPRS or in theapproach to services taken by that institution.The head of the UPRS pointed instead thatthe aims were “To pursue the interests of thelocal government and provide welfare for thechildren.”

SOS Desa Taruna in Central Java, on theother hand, made use of the Convention onthe Rights of Child in its statement of valuesand approach. Coming under the network ofthe international organisation SOS Children’sVillages, its work and approach is set out in anorganisational Manual (SOS Childrens VillageManual). It states that “We perform our dutiesimbued with the spirit of the UN Convention onthe Rights of the Child.” Regular training onchildcare and child development is providedto staff on the basis of the Manual and staffhad received training on child protection andon prevention and response to violence againstchildren.

Despite the obvious lack of knowledgeamong the great majority of childcareinstitutions about applicable standards relatingto children, including their care and protection,many of the institutions clearly felt that theywere operating in the best interest of children.Managers and staff often emphasized that allactivities and services provided were carriedout with children’s best interest in mind as wasthe case for example in Darul Ulum Al-Munnawwarah, “The head of the institutionstated that everything that was done, in the


page

106

organisation or in the childcare institutionwhether viewed from the perspective of aimsand objectives or in terms of values, was donein the best interests of the children”.

The understanding behind the concept of‘best interest’ varied though. A number of thefaith based institutions pointed out that therewas no need for standards or guidelines asreligion was the basis of all action in theparticular institution and would always be inthe best interest of children as was explainedby the Manager of Hidayatullah

“Until now this institution has operated andalways acted based upon Islamic values. I’mconfident that these values in no waydiverge from the Convention on the Rightsof the Child and the Child Protection Law.So, while we don’t have any of thesedocuments here, and the managers havenever received training on them, everythingthat we do is intended to safeguard thefaithful, including protecting children.”

Similarly, the manager of Al Amin explained,

“I have a mandate to look after thesechildren, and I have to fulfill that mandateto the best of my abilities. Hopefully,whatever I do will always be in the bestinterests of these children. We don’t need tolook at the Convention on the Rights of theChild or the Child Protection Law.

Everything is already made clear by Islamicteachings. Like Surah 107, Al-Maun, verses1-7, which tell us to provide assistance tothe orphans, the indigent, and to look afterweak children.”

Some of the other institutions felt thatanything that was provided for these childrenwould clearly be in their best interest becauseit would be more than what they would begetting at home or in their communitiesbearing in mind their socio-economic status,as was expressed by staff from Al Ikhlas

“What they get here is already better thanwhat they would get at home.”

Others pointed that children being ableto access education or health in particular wasclearly in their best interest as explained bythe head of Ina Theresia, “Yes, certainly in theinterest of these children’s future, particulary interms of formal education and health”.

In many cases, the staff and managers ofthe institutions had clearly equated the overallaims of their institution with what is best forchildren so that everything that was done forchildren within that framework was deemedby default in their best interest. There was littlespace given or interest evidenced in exploringchildren’s individual needs, let alone wishes.

Footnotes:1 Cyrulnik, B (2002) Un merveilleux malheur. P.101. Odile Jacob: Paris.2 Standardization for Social Care Institutions (2004). Social Welfare Education and Research Board, Ministry of

Social Affairs.3 For an analysis of those differences see the Text Box on Ibnu Taimyiah for an example of a pesantren with a

childcare institution4 “Kyai” is the title employed by experts on Islam who own or run pesantren. The term is more often employed in

Java. Meanwhile, an “ustad” is a male teacher of Islam, and an “ustadzah” a female teacher of Islam.

“Someone That Matters” | IX. Professional practice

page

107

IX. Professional practice

THE WAY CHILDCARE institutions understood their role and the situation of the childrenwhich they sought to help clearly had a fundamental impact on the way they delivered servicesincluding in terms of staffing, practices, rules and regulations but also in terms of how theymanaged the children’s placements, the transition out of ‘care’ and the relationships throughoutbetween children, their families and the institution itself. As Boris Cyrulnik pointed out, “Aninstitution is structured like a person, with walls and regulations that materialize the thoughts of thosethat hold the power.”1

Outreach and recruitment

The emphasis on providing access to education meant that almost all of the institutions sawthe recruitment process and the selection of children as relating to educational needs. Generally


page

108

this meant identification of how many childrenfrom the institution would be graduating fromSenior High School and a process to replacethem with new children by means of ‘outreach’also called ‘recruitment’.

The process of ‘outreach’ or therecruitment of children to be placed in theinstitutions took place in virtually all of theinstitutions but a number had becomesufficiently established and well known so thatthey did not need to look for new childrenbut could instead rely on children and theirfamilies coming directly to the institution orbeing referred to them by their own networks.It was clear though, that the way the institutionhad been established or had evolved as well aswhether it was private or government run hadan important impact on the way children werebeing identified and selected.

The Government institutions generallyhad an official outreach process, often involvingthe local Office of Social Affairs that related tothe school year and the number of childrenwho had graduated from their institutionthereby creating new vacancies.

In Suci Hati in Aceh, for example,

“The head of the institution describedhow the admission of children waspreceded by a calculation of the numberof high school graduates who wouldleave that year. The Office of SocialAffairs would then inform the SocialWelfare Offices in the 11 sub-districts ofWest Aceh, through the MeulabohDistrict Office of Social Affairs , about“vacancies” for children in theinstitution. The Head of the MeulabohOffice of Social Affairs also normally seta maximum quota of 4 children fromeach district so as to give equalopportunities to children from differentareas to secure places in the institution.The Head of the Meulaboh Office ofSocial Affairs is also notified about thedecision taken in relation to theadmission of children.” (interview with thehead of institution)

Similarly, Huke Ina, a local government runinstitution in Buru Island (Maluku), a processof ’socialisation’ through every sub-districts andvillages in the island resulted in a shortlist whichwas then used for selection by the institutionon the basis of the available places inaccordance with the number of children whohad just graduated.

“The initial stage in the acceptance ofnew placements is based on the quotaand the number of high schoolgraduates who will leave. Officials thendisseminate information on theadmission of new children in all the sub-districts and villages in the District ofBuru. Children are then registered ineach village for subsequent selection bythe institution. The criteria employed inmaking selections are that the childrenare of school age, orphaned, destitute orfrom isolated traditional communities.Staff member S1 related this account ashe had been directly involved in makingthe selections for the 2006 academicyear. It was officials from the BuruDistrict Office of Social Affairs whowent into the villages to recruit childrenas the Office also has a program forneglected children on Buru Island.”

Government institutions also tended touse a system of waiting lists and focused onthe school year as the period of recruitment.In Nirmala in Aceh for example, as explainedby its Manager,

“The process of admission of childrennormally commences at the start of thenew school year. The reason for this is thatchildren living in the institution must receiveformal education. If a child enters theinstitution prior to the new school year, heor she will be placed on the waiting list.”

In NTB, Harapan also had to comply withthe decision of the Governor of the Provinceto reach a quota of 100 children in itsinstitution, “Gubernatorial Decree No. 498 setsa target of 100 placements in PSAA Harapanbased on the following criteria: the childrenare motherless or fatherless, orphaned,neglected, from poor families, and have done


page

109

well at school previously.” (interview with thehead of institution)

The private institutions on the other hand,had started either from a personal initiativeor as part of the programmes from their parentorganisations. Significantly, the research foundthat quite a number of private institutions hadevolved from what was generally individualinitiatives involving a few children to becomingactual childcare institutions. Prajapati in NorthSulawesi for example, started when a Buddhistmonk was entrusted with the care of a 3 daysold baby as the mother could not care for her.As one of the staff explained, “ The arrival of the3-day-old baby led to Bikku (the head monk) todevelop the role of the monastery in the care,maintenance and education of needy children. Thiswas in line with Bikku’s conscience and Buddhistteachings.”

Muhammadiyah Cilacap in Aceh, SayapKasih and Dr Lukas in North Sulawesi, NurIlahi in West Kalimantan, Darurrohkmah inCentral Java, Dharma Laksana in Lombok hadall started with a handful of children being caredfor in a private house by some individual who,out of personal concern began caring for thesechildren and then decided to expend theinitiative by establishing an institution to carefor more children.

Darrurohkmah is a typical example,

”It’s important to note that the ladieswho established this institution wereNU ladies. At that time, Ibu SCM wasalso chairwoman of the GroboganDistrict Branch of the NU Women’sAssociation. Supported by her husband,she was determined to provide a placeto stay for neglected children from thevillages located around the institution. In1991, she started with 11 children, whowere housed in a rented house. Shethen procured beds and managed tosecure mattresses from a company inJakarta.”

Dr. J. Lukas started as one cottage with ayoung child and grew as another nearbychildcare institution did not have the fundsanymore to care for children aged 10-12 so

that these children were moved to whatbecame Dr. J. Lukas.

Muhammadiyah in Cilacap, in Central Java,started in 1978 with four children living in thehouse of a carer. These children had beenrecruited by some local benefactors andmembers of Muhammadiah from families whichwere deemed unable to pay for their children’seducation.

Nur Ilahi in West Kalimantan was startedin 1997 by a local radio broadcaster who ‘onlywanted to help’ children from a poorbackground, particularly children from theDayak community and children who had justbeen converted to Islam.

“The first group of children arrivedwhen the institution was established 9years ago. They were brought by UncleSyukur, an elementary school teacher inSintang, who “rounded up” indigentchildren in the Sintang area to offerthem to go to school in Pontianak.Actually, the 20 children who werebrought from Sintang were originallysupposed to have been placed in theAhmad Yanni Childcare Institution.However, as it was already full, theywere brought to Nur Ilahi instead.”

Al Ikhlas in NTB began as an attempt tomake better use of the new mosque facilitythat had been built, as explained by its founder,

“I thought about it because of the mosque,to liven up the mosque, I saw that it was onlyused on Fridays. On other days, it was empty.So I thought that hopefully orphans wouldmake it busy.”

As a result he started a Koran readinggroup for the children from the surroundingvillage and found that among the 150 childrenattending, 12 boys did not want to go home,either because they had none or were livingon the streets or in the market. As a resultthe founder allowed them to stay in the disuseddormitory within the Mosque complex.

“For food, they could eat here, at myparents’ house. My mother would do thecooking.” Starting then, the founder


page

110

sought out support anddonations to support thechildren. Thus, in reality, hehad no intention originallyof establishing a childcareinstitution, but rather onlywanted to see the mosquelivened up with childrenstudying the Koran.”

Many of the private childcareinstitutions initially developedtheir own systems of recruitment,either through their networks orsimply by visiting village per villagecertain areas and identifyingthrough the heads of the villageand the local religiousrepresentatives children who were deemed tobe in need of their care.

As was explained by the staff of EbenHaezer in West Kalimantan,

“Before we used to go to the villages tofind poor children so that we could putthem through school and teach them inthe institution, but now a lot of peoplecome on their own directly. When weused to go to the villages, the preachersand ministers would all play a part.”(Interview with head of institution.)

“Now, it’s open to everyone. The systemnow is that at the end of the year whensome of the children have alreadyfinished (school), we announce thenumber of vacancies that are available.Children don’t come here on their ownwithout being accompanied. They’rebrought here by their parents orrelatives. There are also children whocome here from other schools as theirparents can’t pay the fees. So they comehere instead. Children who live nearbycan live at home or in the institution.However, we advise them to live in theinstitution. We keep monitoring them sothat they can move here whenever thetime is right.” (Interview with staff)

This was also the case in Ina Theresia in Maluku,

“Outreach in the 1980s was carried outby a number of the first group of nunsrunning the institution, together withthe church and the Maria MediatrixDiocese in Ambon. They focused onisolated villages on Seram Island, suchYalahatan, Masohi, Amahai, Saparua,villages in the Watubela islands, such asTeor, and a number of villages in the Kaiislands, such as Tual, Kaibesar, andKaikecil, and Buru Island, such asNamlea. The outreach work oftenextended as far as Flores Island.

Now the institution works with theSanto Yohanes Penginjil-Masohi Churchas the residents of the institutionattend religious services there. Theoutreach activities normally start with areligious service, such as a communalservice in the village. After the service isover, the nuns come around to talkprivately, one-to-one with parents whoit is believed are unable financially toprovide for their children. The maintargets of these approaches are smallfarmers and fisherfolk. Following theirchats with the parents, one or twochildren will normally get one or twochildren who can immediately bebrought to the institution (notaccompanied by parents).”


page

111

Patmos, a Christian institution in Lombokalso used its partner organisations across anumber of Provinces to identify and select thechildren. Individuals within that network wouldtake responsibility for identifying and bringingthe children to the institution, often far awaysuch as Bima in the far east of NTB or Kupangin West Timor where one of Patmos’s mainpartner organisation, Yayasan Sumber Kasihoperates. Often these individual recruiters or‘responsible persons’ within that network arefriends of the head of the institution or evenalumni of the institution.

A similar process of ‘outreach’ was alsofound in the case of the childcare institutionsrun by Islamic organisations. Those with farreaching networks like Darul Aitam in NTBwhich is under the extented Islamic networkof Nahdatul Wathan (NW), relied entirely ontheir local branches to identify and selectsuitable candidates for the institution,

“Well, it’s the branch managers whoregister the children. Children never comehere on their own and if they do, we sendthem to the branches first. If there are anyproblems, the people who register thechildren are responsible for sorting themout. If there are any difficulties, we get intouch with them. So, the branches send theapplications here, together with declarationsfrom the villages, declarations stating thatthe children find themselves in difficultcircumstances financially. That’s forregistration. So, we need a declarationdeclaring they are poor from the villagehead certified by the sub-district head, anda doctor’s certificate. The sub-branches canalso make applications, but the branchesmust be informed.” (Interview with staff)

The fact that the aim of NW is to spreadIslam through its network of Cadres meantthat it was seen as part of the organisation’swork to look for potential recruits for theirchildcare institutions.

Other Islamic organisations with wellestablished networks of members likeMuhammadiyah, also made use of these tosupport the process of selection as well as toaccompany the new recruits to the institution,

as staff at Muhammadiah Lhoksemawe in Acehexplained, “The children are normally brought hereby their parents or guardians. Some of them arealso brought here by officers from Muhammadiyahdistrict branches where the children live.”

Other Islam based institutions which didnot access such wide networks generallycarried out their own process of ‘outreach’through the surrounding communities directly.

In Al Hidayah in Maluku, for example, theprocess of identifiying potential recruits wasdescribed as follows,

“Until now the process of admission hasbeen carried out through a process ofsocialization in the community. We first senda letter to the local village head asking himto draw up a list of neglected children. Then,we wait for the village head or parents tocome to the institution. Last month(December), one of the staff alsoapproached the head of Pelau village, whichis this staff member’s home village and as aresult to 2 elementary school-age childrenwere recruited.”

The focus on simply replacing childrenwho graduate meant that generally the stafffrom the institution or the parent organisationneeded only to identify a fixed number ofchildren. For institutions whose parentorganisations were well established across anentire subdistrict/ district or even at theprovincial and national levels, this meant thatchildren could easily be referred through thosenetworks.

For the institutions that did not have suchwell established links or that were located incommunities that seemed more reluctant toput their children in institutions, the processof recruitment was felt to be more of achallenge. Dharma Laksana, a Hindu institutionestablished in Lombok to care in particular forchildren from the ethnic Balinese communityfound that these families were reluctant toplace their children in care. As a result theinstitution had to carry out extensive outreachand repeat visits to families including in quiteisolated areas to convince the parents to placetheir children with the institution.


page

112

“They conduct outreach work in thename of the Hindu AssociationFoundation (Lembaga Persatuan UmatHindu). Every time officers of thisimportant organization conductreligious work in the regions, theyalways mention the institution. Theofficers encourage poor Hindus to placetheir children in Dharma Laksana.However, not many Hindu families areinterested in doing, so it may be saidthat this approach has failed to produceoptimal results.”

In addition the staff of the institution alsocarried out their own personal approaches totheir less affluent neighbours to explain tothem how their children could access freeeducation through their institution and toconvince them to place them there.

Another example was Huke Ina, the localgovernment institution in Buru Island in Malukuwhich despite its formal outreach systemseemed also to need to rely on personaloutreach by its staff.

“The explanation given by theinstitution’ officials was that theinstitution did not have enough children.They needed more children to replacethe vacancies in the institution.”

Interestingly, there seemed to be cleardifficulties in recruiting children across Maluku.As with families from the Hindu communitiesin Lombok, families in Maluku seemed morereluctant to place their children in care thanseemed to be the case in other provinces. Asput by the head of Al Hidayah’s foundingorganisation “To get children is quite difficult here.Even when children have been registered, theirparents often don’t want to let them go to be caredfor in the institution.” The reason for thereluctance of families in Maluku to use childcareinstitutions, even when they are facingchallenges in providing for their children, wasexplained by the Director of Caleb House asbeing primarily cultural, “Maluku culturedemands that parentless children be cared for bythe male side of the family. But we try to convincefamilies that we will properly look after the childrenand that the whole thing will be kept confidential.”

The practice of staff carrying out their ownrecruitment in their home location or the placewhere they live was actually found to be quitecommon across the 6 provinces. Lack ofresource, financial and human, to carry out the‘outreach’ often resulted in staff doing therecruitment in their ‘own backyard’ during theirtime back home for the religious festivals andother holidays. As a result, children in some ofthe institutions tended to come from the samelocality where the staff had come from,sometimes quite a distance from where theinstitution was located. That was the case in AlMuthadien in North Sulawesi, “Some of thegirls, for example, found out about Al-Muthadien from the institution’s staff. Theywere invited and brought here by one staff whocame from the same area than them.” Thiswas also confirmed by the girls “... we are fromthe same village as Ustad Wahid from Gorontalo.”(another province)

Nurul Ikhlas in Maluku provides anotherstriking example. A women looking for workafter the death of her husband found work asa cook in the institution at the time when itwas desperately looking to recruit children.“The institution was empty, it was just a forestarea. There was no one here.” In the processshe not only placed her own six children inthe institution but was tasked with recruitingmany more children from the island of Seramwhere she came from. As a result many of thechildren in that institution come from Seram.

More suprisingly, the research also foundexamples of staff recruiting children amongtheir own relatives. In the Government runUPRS in West Kalimantan, this seemed to bethe usual practice.

“Children come here as a result of outreachand family ties. By “family ties” I mean thatstaff members bring relatives or childrenfrom the same village here, provided thatthey meet the criteria.”

This statement was confirmed byanother staff member: “We can alsoaccept children from relatives, siblings andchildren from the same villages as thecarers.”


page

113

Generally though, as an institution becamebetter known with the surroundingcommunities, the need for active ‘recruitment’seemed to become less acute as familiestended to bring their children directly to theinstitutions. Institutions used ‘word of mouth’,in particular from children who had ‘graduated’from the institution, from staff, friends, teachersand through children at school. The majorityof children in the 36 institutions surveyed hadbeen placed directly by their parents orguardians.

As staff from Muhammadiyah Lhoksemaweexplained,

“Normally, the children are brought here bytheir parents or guardians. They will haveheard about this institution, usually fromformer residents working in the community,such as those working in community healthcentres (Puskesmas), as district officers,teachers, traders, etc. When they hearabout this Muhammadiyah institution, theyare interested in getting their children toschool. On average they tend to befatherless children, orphans and those whoare poor. Rather than not getting aneducation, it’s better that their families sendthem here.”

In the great majority of cases, children’splacement was seen by their families and thechildren themselves in the context of ensuringtheir access to education. As one child inWahyu Yoga Dharma in Central Java explained,“When it was time for me to move from grade 1to grade 2, my parents were unable to pay thefees. So I was sent here by my parents so that Icould continue on at school.”

Children’s placements in Darul Hikmah inNTB were also explained in terms of parentsseeking to access free education for theirchildren,

“Both the parents and children areaware that by staying in the institutiontheir children can go to school near theinstitution for free. If they go to schoolwithout staying in the institution, theyhave to pay and the fees are high, almosttwice the costs than for children staying

in the institution. Besides paying schoolfees, they would also have to pay fortransport, pocket money for thechildren as some of them live far awayfrom the school. By living in thisinstitution, the children benefit from afree junior high school or MTSeducation as they get BOS (educationassistance) from the government. Save inthe case of Senior High School, wherethe parents still have to pay Rp 75,000for each semester.” (USD 7.50)

In addition to formal education, manyfamilies were keen to place their children inthe faith based institutions to ensure theyreceived appropriate moral and religiouseducation but also to remove them from whatthey saw as ‘bad influences’ from the outsideworld. One parent who had placed 3 of herchildren in Hidayatullah explained,

“A pesantren is a place for religiousteaching. I’m glad that my children livethere. If they were at home, there would betoo much free mixing, the environment isn’tgood for them, kids often go out drinking, toparties. I find it hard to control them. But inthe pesantren, they live orderly lives, go toschool, pray five times a day, study theKoran, learn about other aspects of ourreligion. So I feel happy and secure thatthey’re there.”

The research also found that in a numberof cases, children had played an important rolein their placement, either by asking theirfamilies to be placed in the institution or bycoming to the institution of their own initiative.This seemed to happen mostly as a result ofthe child hearing about the institution from analumni, a teacher, a relative or from a staff ofthe institution. Generally these childrenseemed to regard entering the institution as ameans of securing their education as well as,in some cases, a way of relieving their familiesfrom the economic burden of caring for them.

One child in Eben Haezer, for example,had come on his own to the institution,

“He arrived in July 2003, with his farepaid for him by his mother. He wanted


page

114

to enter the institution as he knew thiswould enable him to go to school. Priorto leaving home, he had explained hisintention to his mother and father aftera visit to his aunt, who worked in theclinic operated by the Perintis MissionFoundation. His mother gave him herconsent and blessing. Upon arriving atthe institution, he met with the head,“Mam, please, can I stay here? The thing ismy parents are poor.” The head replied,“Yes, you may, but you must promise, youhave to obey all the rules in the institution.”I replied, “I promise I will.”

In addition to the usual outreach practices,institutions which were established specificallyas a response to a natural disaster or conflictdeveloped particularly proactive recruitmentpractices. Darul ’Ulum Al-Munnawwarah inAceh for example, was tasked by its parentorganisation to look for children affected bythe tsunami.

“Given the conditions at that time,Nahdatul Ulama (NU) asked me on 1January 2005 to take in some of the childvictims of the tsunami. After the tsunami, alot of assistance was given to parents, butlittle attention was paid to the children,especially their education. So, we primarilyfocused on the education aspect. At thattime we went around the tents of thosewho had been displaced and managed tobring 40 children to be placed in theinstitution. After that, more children werebrought here by village heads. Nowadays, alot of parents/guardians bring their childrenhere because they are unable to supportthem.” (Interview with the head ofinstitution)

Recruiting from displaced persons campsin the aftermath of the tsunami in Aceh wasfound to be a very common practice and oftena very effective way of identifying new recruits.The great majority of these children were livingin cramped and uncertain conditions inbarracks or tents and the prospect of securingaccess to education as well as better conditionswas an important pull factor for these families

as well as for the children. As some of thechildren recruited from the camps explained,

“Ustad M came and invited us to come tothe Dayah (Achenese term for an islamicboarding school). He said that in theDayah we would be able to learn aboutreligion. I wanted to go. In fact, I hadwanted to enter a Dayah long before this.Mum however did not want me to go but Imade her agree by crying and crying. In theend, she said yes, and the next day shebrought me here.”

“When I met the Ustad, he invited me tothe Dayah. I wanted to go as I was bored inthe camp.”.

Proactive and focused recruitmentpractices were also found across theinstitutions aiming to provide assistance tochildren coming from families affected byconflict as was the case with Caleb House andIna Theresia in Maluku and Al Amin and Pepabriin West Kalimantan. Some of these institutionswere already operating before the conflict andsimply shifted their recruitment focus to thatparticular group of children and their familiesas in Al Amin’s case. Others simply took inchildren affected by the conflict as one of theirtarget groups as in the case of MuhammadiyahLhoksemawe and Suci Hati in Aceh. Some,though were specifically established to respondto what was felt to be needs arising from theconflict. The founding organisation for CalebHouse in Maluku for example, was providing


page

115

direct support to families in communitiesaffected by the inter-communal violence fortwo years before deciding that some of thechildren needed to be removed from theirfamilies and communities.

“In the light of developments, it wasdecided that the children would neverbe able to overcome the trauma theyhad experienced if they remained in theplace where the disturbances had takenplace. As a result of counselling with apsychologist which confirmed the highlevels of trauma the children hadexperienced and because of theircondition which staff members hadobserved, in particular the children’sconstant suspicion and the vacant looksin their eyes, Caleb then offered thechildren’s parents the opportunity ofplacing their children in the institutionso that they could receive help. Themain thinking behind this was a beliefthat a change of location would helpovercome the children’s trauma so thatthey could go to school and develop likenormal children.”

Even when established specifically torespond to a particular conflict or event,institutions tended to fairly rapidly evolve abroader focus for their recruitment as theyencountered other potential recruits or as theneeds of the emergency moved away whilethose of the institution remained. Pepabri inWest Kalimantan was established in 1997 tocare for ‘orphaned’ children from militarypersonnel (then referred to as ABRI). In theaftermath of the inter-communal conflict in thatprovince, it focused on the children of militarypersonnel who had died in that conflict but itsoon shifted its recruitment practice to a moregeneric group of ‘neglected children’ once thepurpose for which it had been establishedfaded.

“There were a lot of ABRI children hereback then. But after our (ABRI) childrenhad left, no one else wanted to come here.Since 2002 to date, whenever a childleaves here or graduates from high school, Iimmediately send for a replacement. If

there are any poor children, fatherless ormotherless children or orphans who wantto continue on at school, please let usknow.”

Surprisingly, the research found very fewinstances of actual referral of cases byauthorities or organisations working withchildren at particular risk. While there werecases of referral from one childcare institutionto another, this was invariably as a result ofthe institution being full capacity or the childnot fulfilling certain set criteria such as the faithof that institution. Referrals by authorities inrelation to children who were facing particularprotection risks, for example, were found inonly two cases. In Harapan in NTB, one childwho had been found living in a prostitutionarea had been referred to the institution bythe local Child Protection Body (LPA). A childvictim of sexual violence had also once beenreferred to SOS Desa Taruna from the localOffice of Social Affairs in Semarang.

The lack of such referrals generallyseemed to result not only from a lack ofcoordination between the agencies workingwith these children but also from the fact thatthe majority of the institutions caring for‘neglected’ children saw their role in terms ofproviding access to education rather thanresponding to the needs of children facingprotection risks. In that sense, institutions wereactually found to be quite selective and tendedto exclude children who were deemed to bemore ‘needy’. This emphasis on recruitingchildren that fit the overall objective of theinstitution to provide education was alsoclearly reflected in terms of the process ofselection and the criteria used.

Selection criteria

As discussed above, most of theseinstitutions stated that they prioritised childrenwho were orphaned, fatherless, sometimesmotherless and generally ‘neglected’ children,coming from poor families unable to providefor them. This was reflected in the formalcriteria for selection of virtually all of theinstitutions assessed. The selection criteria as


page

116

stated by Nirmala, the government runinstitution in Aceh, were fairly typical of thecriteria used by the majority of the childcareinstitutions assessed,

“The criteria for the acceptance ofchildren by this institution are as follows:

l Fatherless, motherless children, orphans,children of indigent families

l 10 years of age, or a minimum of grade 4in elementary school

l Has a parent or guardian that can becontacted by the institution.

The following documents must befurnished:

1) medical certificate of good health;

2) A copy of the Parents’s Identity Card(KTP),

3) Letter of request by the parent orguardian,

4) declaration that the parents are indigentfrom the local village head.”

Some institutions emphasized a hierarchyin terms of selection, with orphans coming first.

In Eben Haezer for example,

“1. Scale of priorities for admission from Sambasand other Districts:

1.1. Orphans1.2. Fatherless/Motherless1.3. Neglected.”

As we have seen above, data on thechildren’s parental status shows that in fact veryfew of these institutions care for orphans anda majority of the children have at least oneand often both parents. The case of UPRS inWest Kalimantan provides a striking illustration.While staff there emphasized that the primarycriteria for admission was being withoutparental care, particularly orphans, only 1 outof the 60 children placed in that institutionwas actually an orphan.

Thus while formal criteria for selectionoverwhelmingly seemed to prioritise orphansand children without families, it is clear that inreality children were placed in care by their

own families or through a recruitment processthat emphasized access to education ratherthan the need for alternative care. In line withthis, another key criteria for selection used bythe great majority of institutions was age. Theoverwhelming majority of institutions requiredchildren to be of school age as well as to beold enough to ‘take care of themselves’. Thiswas usually defined as being of elementaryschool level (SD or Sekolah Dasar) and usallyin class 3 or 4 (around 8 or 9 years of age).While the need for the child to be of schoolage was generally explained in terms of theoverall aim of the placement being access toeducation, the need for the child to be selfsufficient was understood as a separaterequirement. It was highlighted throughout theinstitutions assessed and explained by staff asresulting both from the sheer lack of staffavailable to care for the children but alsobecause the institutions could not ‘bebothered’, or could not ‘handle’ children whocould not take care of their own daily needssuch as washing, cleaning and ironing their ownclothes, or taking care of the daily maintenanceof the institution. In addition, many institutionspointed out that children needed to be oldenough not to make too many ‘emotional’demands on the staff.

This approach was found across bothgovernment and privately run childcareinstitutions. In Harapan, for example, theGovernment institution in NTB,

“The minimum age for becoming a child ofthe institution is grade 3 of elementaryschool or above. The reason for this is thatchildren of this age are better able to lookafter themselves so that the institution isnot excessively burdened managing them.”

In Eben Haezer in West Kalimantan thestaff explained,

“In the early stages we accepted childrenbefore they had started school, very youngchildren, if their parents were poor. Since1978, however, we have only beenaccepting school-age children. The reasonfor this is that it is too time-consuming tolook after young children. So let theirparents look after them.”.


page

117

In Al Ummah in Aceh,

“As the children here need to be able to lookafter themselves, do things on their own, weonly accept boys and girls of nine years andover, or children who are already in grade 4of elementary school.”

In Muhammadiyah Lhoksemawe staffsexplained the criteria as follows,

“The reason is that children in grade 4 ofelementary school are already self reliant,they can wash their own clothes, do theirown ironing, wash their own dishes. Also,they’re no longer spoiled.”

“This institution will reject these childreneven if the administrative requirementshave been fulfilled, for example, all thedocuments have been provided. If we wereto accept them, they wouldn’t be able towash clothes or do the ironing. So, who’sgoing to do it for them? To be frank, thisinstitution doesn’t have enough staff towash and iron the children’s clothes.However, if a child’s already in grade 3 ofelementary school and meets the criteria,we may still accept him, Miss, provided hecan do his own washing and ironing.”

Even in institutions which placed few othercriteria on children’s admission, the capacityof a child to take care of his or herself wasdeemed essential as in Hidayatullah in Maluku,

“...in order to ensure the smoothrunning of services, the institutionprioritizes children who are already atelementary school-age as every childhere is taught to be self-reliant. If thechildren are too young, because there’sno one to manage them. “

The same explanation was given by NurulIkhlas also in Maluku,

“Another criterion for acceptance is thatthe child be of school age. This is applied soas to facilitate the care process, bearing inmind that the institution does not haveenough staff to care and attend to (youngerchildren).”

As a result of this emphasis on accessingeducation and being able to take care of oneself,

there were actually very few infants and onlysmall number of children under 8 ininstitutional care. In fact, this seemed theprimary and in many cases the only, real groundon which the institutions were actuallyprepared to reject a placement. 2

There were some important exceptionsto this, though. For institutions that had aspecific ‘family care’ focus rather than just aneducation focus as with SOS Desa Taruna inCentral Java and Dr. J. Lukas in North Sulawesi,the reverse was true. These institutions actuallytargeted babies and very young children to bepart of the ‘family environment’ they werecreating. In SOS Desa Taruna, recruiting babieswas actually seen to be an important way ofretaining foster mothers and ensuring theirbonding with the children. This institutionoperates around a system of foster mothers,single women who are recruited for a life timeas long as they agree not to marry and havechildren of their own. The foster mothers andthe children in their care live as a family in 14cottage houses on a compound which isorganised around a village like structure. Eachmother cares for 8 to 11 children and the focusis on recruiting children from 0 to a maximumof 9 years of age.

Not long before the assessment forexample, one of the foster mothers had justreceived the addition of a very young baby girlof only a few weeks old. The baby girl hadapparently been born of a relationship betweenteenagers who were still at school and the childwas placed in care as a result. The foster motherhad actually been involved in finding the childand the head of the institution emphasized thathe saw this as an important part of ensuringthat the woman felt able to continue workingas a foster mother as many of her otherchildren were already grown up. Staff at SOSalso explained the focus on getting children asyoung as possible on the ground that, “It’sdifficult to get children who have already beencontaminated by a bad environment to be part ofa family.”

Similarly, Dr. J. Lukas which operatesaround a concept of ‘building families’ focusedon younger children, from babies to a maximum


page

118

of 12 years of age. This criteria was explainedin terms of the child’s adaptation and the factthat, “Teaching a child who is still young is mucheasier than with an older child. Young children findit easier to adapt and are easier to control.”

Sayap Kasih in North Sulawesi which caresfor children who are neglected as a result of‘double/severe’ disability also admitted youngerchildren but drew the line to toddlers, “Wedon’t accept disabled children under 2 years ofage as it’s very difficult to take care of disabledbabies. We have had to refuse many parents whowanted to leave their (disabled) children in theinstitution because they didn’t meet the criteria.”

One institution though, Ina Theresia inMaluku, had a different perspective on the agelimit and actually sought to recruit youngerchildren from babies to 12 years old, inparticular girls, because it was felt that theywere a lot ‘easier’ to care for than teenagersand they could be ‘shaped’ and made to followthe religious practice more easily if cared forfrom a young age. The Sister who heads theinstitution explained,

“If infants are taught from a very early age,the carers won’t have so many problemsteaching them and endoctrinating them intoreligion when they are teenagers. When achild is “taken” from his or her parents,from that day on the child will stay in theinstitution until graduation from highschool.”

That concept of children being ‘educated’more easily if they entered the institution at arelatively young age was also referred to in anumber of the other faith based institutions.While they tended to draw the line toelementary school age children in order toensure that the children were ‘able to take careof themselves’, a number of institutions alsolooked to recruit children of that age range. InAl Ikhkas for example, the manager stated,

“We accept elementary school-age boys,elementary school graduates and juniorhigh school graduates. We prefer boys fromelementary school as it is easier to moldtheir characters. We had problems in thepast trying to teach high school boys.”

While there tended not to be a statedupper age limit for children entering theinstitutions, the focus on education generallywas understood to mean that only children ofschool age were to be admitted, meaning under18 years of age for those following the nationalcurriculum and under 19 to 20 years of agefor those attending traditional Islamiceducation. In a context where placement isseen as a means of accessing education and achild is expected to stay until he or shegraduates from senior high school, recruitinga child at elementary school level may be away of ensuring that the institution has a placefilled for a prolonged period of time. As wesaw earlier, funding is often connected to thenumber of children and this is likely to be an

important consideration for the institutions interms of their recruitment practices. Admittinga child who only has a couple of years left inhis or her education could be seen as a difficultand short term investment as opposed toadmitting a younger child who could be madeto adapt to the institution more easily and filla place for a considerable period of time thusensuring a relatively secure income source inthe process.

Gender tended to be a criteria forselection only in those institutions which forreligious reasons or for practical reasons haddecided to care only for boys or girls. The greatmajority of institutions (over 80%), including


page

119

faith based ones, cared for both boys and girlsalthough some enforced strict separationbetween the two sexes as was the case forexample with Muhammadiyah Cilacap, inCentral Java and Hidayatullah in Maluku.

A more common and yet surprisingcriteria for admission related to the child’shealth. Almost all of the institutions requiredthe child to be stated healthy and free ofmedical problems. A health certificate or aletter from the local PUSKESMAS wasinvariably required and it was clear from theapproach taken by the staff that thisrequirement related primarily to the fact thatthe institution would not provide any type ofspecial care for children that may need it. Infact, as we will see in the section relating toPersonal Care, while access to health wassometimes mentioned in some of the missionstatements of the institutions, the requirementthat the child was healthy before entering theinstitution was seen as an important way ofensuring that health needs were very limited.In Nurul Ikhlas for example, the only casewhere a child was actually refused admissionrelated to health, “We’ve only ever had one casewhere a child was refused admission. This wasbecause he had a skin disease and we were afraidit would spread to the other children.”

The requirement of being declared healthypresumably precludes children affected orinfected with HIV/Aids to be admitted to theinstitutions although in most cases that wouldbe dependent on whether their condition wasknown or detected. No awareness of the issuewas found across any of the institutions nor ofthe potential need for care that these childrenmay have.

This criteria seemed to apply not only tochildren’s health but also to disability. In almostall cases except Sayap Kasih that specificallycares for children with disability, disability ofany kind was also seen as ground for exclusionalthough only Eben Haezer had articulated thatformally in its criteria. A couple of institutionshowever, did care for children who had physicalimpairement as a result of violence from theircarer including Caleb House in Maluku and IbnuTaimyiah in West Kalimantan. SOS Desa Taruna

does not accept children with disability inprinciple, however it did have in its care 3children with disability, one who is blind, onewho is mentally retarded and one with multipledisabilities. These children’s disability was onlyfound, out after they had been placed in SOS.By the time it was recognised, their carers didnot want to be separated from them as theyalready had grown fond of the children. Therehad previously been a case, however, wherethe placement of a disabled child referred toSOS was rejected due to the disability and thechild was instead referred to anotherinstitution.

Another, although generally unspokencriteria was religion. As we saw above, allexcept 3 institutions (SOS Desa Taruna, UPRSand Sayap Kasih) recruited children from aparticular faith whether formally or in practice.Often this was done as a matter of fact throughthe selection and outreach process particularlyfor those using their faith based networks forthat purpose. Some, including one institutionwhich targetted specifically children who hadconverted to Islam, recruited children fromfamilies and communities with diverse religiousand ethnic backgrounds. Generally though, itwas following the faith of the institution thatwas made a requirement of placement ratherthan coming from a particular religiousdenomination. The research did find someindications that there were instances ofchildren having practiced one faith before beingadmitted to care and another after enteringthe institution. These cases were hard todocument though, as they were rarely spokenof and never recorded. It was usually duringdiscussions with children or some of the staffthat such cases were referred to.

SOS Desa Taruna and UPRS took an activeapproach to recruiting children from diversereligious backgrounds with UPRS ensuring evena balance in numbers among children fromChristian and Muslim families. SOS selectedfoster mothers who were both Christian andMuslim and placed children from a certain faithwith foster mothers of the same faith.

Prajapati in North Sulawesi, an institutionbased on Buddhist teaching also took a more


page

120

pluralistic approach not excluding childrenfrom other faith and enabled them to practicetheir religion, but in reality few children fromother faith were actually cared there and dailyactivities also centered around Buddhist valuesand practices. Similarly Sayap Kasih did notrestrict admission to children from diversefaiths even though its founding organisation isChristian as it focuses more on the child’sdisability and resulting needs. Dharma Laksana,a Hindu institution in NTB also showed someflexibility in that it provided direct financialsupport for the education of one child from aMuslim family as he was doing particularly wellat school but his family could not afford thecosts. The child was supported directly throughhis family and not residing in the institution.

Government institutions located incommunities which follow primarily one faithas in the case of Aceh for example ,understandably recruited only children fromthe Muslim faith but others like Huke Ina inBuru, Woro Wiloso, and Pamardi Utomo inCentral Java and Harapan in NTB located inmore diverse and pluralistic communities alsoseemed to recruit children only from theMuslim communities.

There were some institutions that clearlymade religious denomination a requirementand placements in a few instances wererejected on the basis of faith. Some of the Islambased institutions made the child’s ability toread the Koran a requirement for admissionsuch as Darul ’Ulum Al-Munnawwarah in Aceh,but that requirement seemed to be lifted oftenin practice. Dr. J. Lukas also emphasized thatthey would refer children not coming from theChristian faith to other childcare institutionsrun under that particular faith.

Other criteria for admission related togetting confirmation of the child’s identity,parental status and the economic situation ofhis or her family, particularly for children beingrecruited on the basis of their family’seconomic situation. The main requirementacross all institutions was for a letter from thelocal village head or local authority as well as,in some cases, from the local religious leader

confirming the status of the child as someone‘in need’.

This process is very entranched in socialwelfare practices in Indonesia whereby in orderto access benefits of any kind, a letter fromthe local village head, local neighborhood leaderis required. As such, most families andinstitutions know to request such a letterbefore seeking any assistance. This does not,however, entail an actual assessement by thoseauthorities of the socio-economiccircumstances faced by a particular family butit is felt generally that the Head of the Villageor the neighborhood block has sufficientknowledge of the community to be able toascertain whether this family is genuinely inneed of help or not. As a result, letters fromthe head of the village or the neighborohoodwould also serve sometimes to confirm a child’sidentity or even status as an orphan or a childin need. As was explained by the manager ofDarurrokhmah,

“If a family comes here (with a child), weinform them of the requirements that mustbe satisfied, such as a death certificate (forparent) from the village head and adeclaration that the child wants to enterthe institution, so that we are sure that thechild is an orphan or indigent.”

The majority of institutions also requestedsome proof of identity for the child, usually inthe form of a birth certificate or a ‘declarationof birth’ (surat lahir). As large numbers ofIndonesian children do not have birthcertificates or other proof of identity, thisrequirement tended to be lifted in many cases.

This is particularly worrying as it meansthat, in most cases, institutions are limited inconfirming the identity of the children in theircare as well as their parental status, particularlyfor the children that are recruited from furtherout than the surrounding communities. In thatregard it is quite striking that SOS Desa Taruna,an organisation that articulates the importanceof families to children, has so many children inits care for whom information about theirfamily of origin is unavailable (parental statuswas unknown for 45% of the children in itscare).


page

121

The research highlighted the fact that theprocess of birth registration in Indonesia maybe particularly failing children in need ofalternative care. Its cost is known to often bea serious deterrent to families getting theirchildren registered in the first place despitegovernment efforts to remove administrativefees. The registration form however alsorequires the child’s parents to be married inorder for the birth to be recorded. For thevast numbers of children who are born fromparents outside of marriage, their fundamentalright to a legal identity of their own separatefrom the marital status of their parents, issimply not recognised. While some localauthorities seemed to have been willing inpractice to bypass such a requirement andenter a single parent as the mother or father,most have not done so, leaving many childrenextremely vulnerable.

Other requirements stipulated forchildren’s admission related to educationalneeds, in particular the need to move schooland the need for certificates to identify whatlevel of education the child had reached priorto the move. Most institutions required acertificate or a document of some sort thatidentified the child’s school level and grades aswell as reasons for moving.

In one case, Nirmala in Aceh, the institutionalso did not allow more than one child perfamily and as such siblings would not beadmitted together. The reasoning behind thiscriteria seemed to relate primarily to theconcept of fairness and ensuring that as manyfamilies as possible would be able to accessthe services provided by that institution. Otherinstitutions had no such rule and in many casesactually welcomed children from the samefamily. In Dr. J. Lukas in North Sulawesi forexample, 55% of the children had at least onesibling in the same institution. This could beunderstood in light of the fact that thisinstitution is focusing on providing care withinfamilies for children. Yet Dr. J. Lukas actuallyseparates siblings within its care families. It doesthis as part of a policy that believes that siblingsshould not be put together within a new carefamily so as to encourage children’s sense ofself sufficiency. Bearing in mind the crucial

bonds that links brothers and sisters and theemotional needs of children whose caresituations have changed, separating them doesnot seem consistent with encouraging thedevelopment of secure attachment bondswithin those new ‘families’.

In another case, in Nur Ilahi in WestKalimantan, admitting a child’s sibling wasactually used as a strategy to ensure that achild who had trouble adapting to theinstitutional environment would be able to doso better with a sibling in the same institution.

Admission process

The process of admission to the childcareinstitutions was strikingly similar across the 6provinces although some were more formalthan others. It generally entailed as identifiedabove the provision of quite a number ofdocuments but in reality very few checks.Government institutions and privateinstitutions that had selected the candidatesas a result of outreach were usually able torequire more detailed documentation aboutthe child’s identity, situation and schooling. Themajority of institutions, however, receivedchildren primarily through the door as a directplacement from their family and had verylimited requirements even in terms of basicdocumentation. Some even shied away fromasking too many questions and making toomany demands so that parents did not changetheir mind about placing their child in thatinstitution, as was found in the case inHidayatullah,

“The children or those accompanyingthem do not have to fill in any forms.The particulars of the children arerecorded in the main book, whichcontains the data on the identity of allthe children. There’s also no agreementthat needs to be signed by the parent orthe person bringing the child to theinstitution. When asked the reason forthis, the institution head replied, “If theadmission rules are too tight, we’re afraidthat would give the impression ofpressuring people.” (Interview with the headof institution)


page

122

A similar approach was also taken inLohoraung, the local government institution inSangihe Island in North Sulawesi, as explainedby its manager,

“... normally the children are brought hereby a priest. If he asks what therequirements are, I tell him there are none.Only I ask them whether they want to go toschool. Because it would be a real pity ifthey came all of this way from their villagebut they still don’t want to study. There aresome who were already working in theirvillages…”

In most cases children were required tobe accompanied by one of their parents or aguardian and this constituted for some one ofthe few criteria for admission. In Al Ummah inAceh for example,

“There are no strict rules about acceptingchildren to this institution. The proceduresare simple. The children are brought here bytheir parents or elder siblings, or come ontheir own. If a child comes alone, he’ll beasked to return with his guardian.”

Children selected as a result of outreachcould also be brought in by a member of thereligious network, the ‘responsible recruiter’or other relevant person who would havesought some form of agreement from the carerfor the placement. While in the majority ofcases children were accompanied by a parentor guardian, some also came on their own oraccompanied by an older sibling, a relative, aneighbour or a local official, mainly becausetheir families were not able to meet the costof transport to accompany them.

Admission usually entailed entering thebasic data of the child in the written registerthat seemed commonly the only document-ation kept by the institutions. Only DharmaLaksana in NTB actually processed the child’sadmission through the office of its parentorganisation rather than directly in thechildcare institution. For all others, admissionwas carried out on site. The head of theinstitution or another staff, if that former wasnot available, met with the child and the personwho brought him or her and gave anexplanation of what the institution was about,

what was expected of the child, and in somecases, what was expected of the family as wellas information about the institution’s rules andregulations. Through this process agreementwas sought from the child and the family toabide by the terms of the placement. This wassometimes recorded and a formal agreementwas signed. More often though, this was donethrough an oral agreement.

The process as laid down in Nirmala inAceh was quite typical of the stages that werefollowed by the institutions who had a moreformal process of admission in place,

1. “Children are to be selected in accordancewith the set criteria.

2. Parent/guardian are requested to makemake a letter of application to place theirchild in the institution. This letter ofrequest is necessary before the institutioncan accept the child. This letter must besigned by the parent/guardian andacknowledged by the local leader or villagehead in the place where the child isresident.

3. The following documents should beattached: Copy of the Identity Card ofparent/guardian, certificate of good healthfrom a doctor in the community healthcentre , and a declaration of financialincapacity from the local leader or villagehead.

4. The rules of institutions which must befollowed are explained to the child.”

The less formal ones on the other hand,tended to follow a process quite similar to theone used by Al Hidayah in Maluku,

“From an administrative perspective, theadmission process to become a child of theinstitution is not done by filling a registrationform but the particulars of the child and hisparents are recorded in the Register. Noformal written agreement is required. Rather,there is only an oral agreement that the childwill be cared for up to graduation from highschool, and when the child graduates or if sheor he breaks the institution’s rules, the childwill be returned to his or her parents and willnot continue at school.”


page

123

While some of the institutions did explainwhat the child and the family could expect fromthe placement, the nature of the process wasfound to be more about ‘laying down of thelaw’ than an opportunity to explore needs,expectations and hopes from the child and hisor her family. The discussion taking placebetween the child and the head of theinstitution and the nature of the agreementsought from the child in terms of his or herplacement generally revolved around therequirement to abide by the rules of theinstitutions.

Examples of what was discussed with thechild upon admission provide strikingillustrations of the approach generally takenand are worth quoting at some length:

Muhammadiyah Lhoksemawe in Aceh,

“... at the admission stage, the child isbrought here by his parents. I then explainto them the rules that must be followedhere. I ask the child if he is willing to get upevery day at 5:00 a.m., to perform thedawn prayer, to study the Koran, to cleanthe yard, to work hard at school, study, washand iron his own clothes? I explaineverything that we do here in front of thechild’s parent or guardian. The child mustcomply with all the rules, must study in adisciplined way. If he proves difficult tocontrol then he will be returned to hisparents/guardian.”

Wahyu Yoga Dharma, Central Java,

“According to the head of theinstitution and the staff, at the admissionstage the child and his family are toldabout the institution’s rules and theobligations of children living in theinstitution. Among the statements madein connection with the children’sobligations were, “early in the morning(the child) must start by washing clothes,must do his own ironing, has to look afterthe chickens and rabbits (which is part ofthe livelihood scheme for the institution -UEP program), is not allowed to talk duringmeals, must be polite, must not play truant...”

Muhammadiyah Cilacap in Java,

“According to explanations from theinstitution head and staff, all of the childrenand their families receive explanationsabout the rules and regulations applied bythe institution, including the rights andobligations of the children while living in theinstitution. These are also contained in theRule Book issued by the institution, whichsets out obligations, prohibitions andsanctions.

The obligations of a child in care are asfollows:

1. To perform religious duties/ perform theprayers on time, and to respect Islamic law.

2. To study hard and to train him/herselfactively in the skills needed for work.

3. To show him/herself to be of goodcharacter, moral, honest, trustworthy,considerate, respectful, and willing to helpothers

4. To take responsibiliy for keeping theinstitution clean and in a good state.

5. To maintain order and quiet, and create anIslamic atmosphere

6. To be obedient and respectful with carersand managers.

7. To maintain the good name of theinstitution

8. To be willing to work for/struggle for theinterests of Muhammadiyah Organisation.

9. To be ready to work according to thework/activities schedule as set out.

10. To demonstrate a responsible, economical,and waste avoiding attitude.

Al Ummah in Aceh,

“The agreement on the placement of achild is only oral in nature, as explainedby the institution head, “I meet withwhoever brings the child here. If later thechild doesn’t want to stay here, he canreturn to his parents. And if he doesn’tfollow the rules, then we will send him backto his parents.”


page

124

Darul Hikmah in NTB,

“When children arrive at the institution,they are told by Pak S, ‘You aren’t allowedto eat until you’re full as this will make youlazy, and you’re not allowed to be toohungry either so that you don’t become ill.”

Huke Ina in Maluku,

“After a child is accepted by theinstitution, the head explains his rightsand obligations to him. The rightsreceived by the children include a placeto live, food, and education, includingschool fees, uniform, shoes, books,lessons and photocopying. Meanwhile,the obligations of the children includestudying and complying with the 18written rules. Staff 4 said that uponentering the institution, a child wasrequired to learn the 18 rules of byheart.”

Eben Haezer in West Kalimantan,

“After a child has been accepted, hereceives an explanation on the rules andactivities of the institution, his rights andthe role that he must play. In this regard,one staff member said: ‘The first thingthey are told is that they are here to go toschool. So, we stress the need for them tostudy hard. We also ask the family to helpus so that the child can adjust. We tell themthat we have rules, that these rules must befollowed. So we ask them to understand ifthey are requested to come here from timeto time. The family aren’t allowed to bringthe child home any time they want. Wehave rules about going home.’ (interviewwith staff)

UPRS also in West Kalimantan,

“A Social Rehabilitation Client Agreement issigned by the child as the first party tothe agreement and the head of theUPRS, as well as the child’s father,mother or guardian. This contains thefollowing terms:

1) agreement to comply with all the rulesof the UPRS in a responsible anddisciplined manner;

2) agreement to accept all guidance fromcarers and instructors;

3) agreement to fully participate in allsocial rehabilitation activities conductedby the UPRS. The child also agrees toaccept whatever sanctions may bedetermined by the head of the UPRS ifhe fails to comply with the above terms.While this document sets out theobligation of the child to obey all therules, etc., there is no correspondingdocument that sets out the rights androle of the child in the institution.”

Few institutions explained to the child orthe parent what the child had a right to expectin return from the institution. Those that did,as in the case of Huke Ina in Maluku quotedabove, referred generally to a place to stay, foodand education being paid for. MuhammadiyahMeulaboh in Aceh was another example, asexplained by one of the children in its care,

“When first arriving at the institution,the head of the institution explainsabout the rights that children have;“among other things the child will a placeto stay,, clothes, food, and school costs, butno transport expenses or pocket money.”Besides this explanation, when a childfirst comes he or she has to sign anagreement before the head of theinstitution to obey all the rules whilestaying in the institution.”

Some of the institutions also used theadmission process to clarify what theyexpected from the child’s family in relation tothe placement. In most cases this focusedmainly on securing the family’s agreement totake back their child, should the boy or girl beexpelled for breaking the rules, or for failingto progress at school or when the placementended after graduation. A number alsoemphasized that the family would not beallowed to interfere in matters relating to theirchild, as well as would not be able to visit orask for the child to visit more often than wasallowed under the rules. The institutions thataimed to create a ’family environment’ as withSOS Desa Taruna in Central Java and Dr. J. Lukas


page

125

in North Sulawesi required families to sign awritten contract to that effect.

SOS Desa Taruna stressed in its letter ofagreement with the family two mainrequirements, “1) That the parents hand overthe child without pressure and of their freewill; 2) that the parents do not attempt tointerfere with the affairs or policies of SOSDesa Taruna. This agreement is then signed bythe parent/guardian and two witnesses.”

Dr. J. Lukas focused on ‘visiting rights’pointing out that,

“In principle, the acceptance by theinstitution of a child is like adoption.Thus, after the child takes up residencein the institution the parents are notallowed to take him/her back wheneverthey want until such time as the child isdeemed to be independent according tothe criteria applied by the institution”

Interestingly, Sayap Kasih in North Sulawesiwhich cares for children with both physical andmental disability, had actually once taken thereverse approach and required parents to signan agreement that they would take their childback after one or two years. Unsuprisingly inlight of the fact that there was little supportavailable to these families in the interim, familiesgenerally did not fulfill their part of theagreement and Sayap Kasih stopped using suchagreements.

Apart from the institutions that werebased on a ‘building family concept’, only the

Government run institutions tended to requirea formal written agreement signed by theparents or the guardians relinquishing the childto the care of the institution. Quite a numberof institutions on the other hand required anagreement letter to be signed by the childstating that he or she was willing to abide byall of the rules and regulations of the institutionor would be ready to face sanctions.

A few institutions also introduced theconcept of ‘orientation’ or a period of adaptionfor the child. Harapan in NTB, for example,provided the child with a two week period oforientation. During those two weeks, the childis introduced to its environment,

“These activities include characterbuilding, and introduction to theinstitutional environment and rules.After the orientation program iscomplete, the children sign a contractexpressing their willingness to obey theinstitution’s rules.”

Darul Aitam also provided a period oforientation as part of its admission processbut this seemed to be more of a trial periodfor the child rather than a period of adaptationas at the end of the period the child isdetermined to have passed or failed, and if failedis immediately replaced by one of the othershortlisted candidates.

A few institutions recognised the need forthe child to be eased into the placement andthis was done generally through the otherchildren. In Patmos in NTB for example, a

newly admitted child wasplaced in the dormitorywith children comingfrom the same area andit was them rather thanthe staff that introducedthe new comer to therules and regulations aswell as life in theinstitution. The sameprocess was used in SuciHati in Aceh, placingchildren from similarareas together. InDarurrokhmah in Central


page

126

Java, there was also an introduction to theenvironment and the other children before thechild was introduced to the rules andregulations, as was explained by its manager,

“First, the child is introduced to the otherchildren and then to the institution’sfacilities, like the bedrooms, bathrooms. Wecall this ‘observation’. After one or two days,we then explain to her about herobligations in order to see how she reacts.Some of the new arrivals immediately fit in,while some others need spiritual supportfrom the older girls before they can adjust.”

The selection and admission process rarelyentailed any type of checking or screening. Infact, most of the institutions stated that theyhad never had to refuse admission to a childbecause he or she did not fit their selectioncriteria. Bearing in mind that the majority ofchildren were admitted after being broughtdirectly by a parent or a guardian, this seemsto indicate that the institutions’ criteria wereeither so broad that virtually any child couldfit within them or that the institutions simplydid not ensure that those criteria wereseriously applied. In fact, in the few cases wherean institution said that they had been underpressure to bend the criteria, they admittedthat they had done so rather than reject theplacement.

In Al Ummah in Aceh for example, theManager admitted a younger child than thecriteria allowed after pressure from theparents, but as the child could not adapt tothe institution he was finally sent back to hisparents. “Because his parent pressured me to takehim, I finally did so. But as it turned out the childcouldn’t fit in and wanted to go home.” SimilarlyPatmos admitted a 9 months old baby left byhis father even though its rules required it toonly admit children who had already finishedelementary school level.

Where an institution had in fact rejecteda placement, it was generally explained in theinterest of the institution, as for example whenthe quota had been filled, the child had an illnessor was from another faith, or was too youngto take care of himself or herself. The researchonly came across a couple of cases where a

placement was reconsidered. One placementin Huke Ina in Maluku ended when it came tolight that the criteria had been broken and thechild still had two parents who were workingand able to care and provide for him. Anotherreported case was in Suci Hati: when it hadcome to light that one of the children owneda motorbike, an assessment of the family wascarried out which showed that the family wasrelatively well off. Generally there was very littleevidence that direct assessments of thesituation of the child and his or her family hadtaken place to ascertain whether the placementwas really the only option or even the bestoption for the child. When some form ofassessement did take place, it was often in thecontext of an outreach and recruitmentprocess where the focus was on findingchildren to be placed in care rather than ondetermining where support to a child and hisor her family would best placed.

In fact, the reverse seemed to havehappened in some cases, particularly in the caseof institutions which had difficulty in recruitingchildren either due to cultural factors orbecause they were not yet sufficiently wellestablished. In Dharma Laksana in NTB, themanager and staff of the institution and itsparent organisation went at great length toconvince parents to let go of their children,even when the parents wanted to continuecaring for their children and when the childdid not want to enter the institution. As someparents could not be convinced to part withtheir children, the institution reluctantlydeveloped a system of support to the child inthe family which it called ‘home care’. Childrenunder this system were suported directly toaccess education through scholarships ratherthan placed into the institution. It was clearthough, that from the institution’s point of viewthis was deemed a lesser alternative, “Themanagement takes the view that by living inthe institution, the children will become moredisciplined, study in a more focused manner,and be sure of regular meals.”

As we have seen, in many cases childrensaw being placed in an institution as the meansfor them to secure an education and it wasclear that children felt that education was key


page

127

to their future. As such they had either agreedto be admitted or even in some casesparticipated in the decision to be placed in theinstitution. In a context where children’sparticipation in daily decisions is very limitedhowever, the extent to which children wereable to make real and informed choices in thatregard is debatable and it is likely that childrenwere primarily reflecting the wishes of theirparents and other significant adults in their lives.There is no doubt though, that in some caseschildren actually encouraged their carers toplace them in the institution so that they couldaccess the education which they saw as crucialfor their future.

In Woro Wiloso in Central Java, some ofthe girls explained that having seen otherchildren, including neighbours, who were ableto finish high school by entering the institution,they asked their parents to be placed in theretoo, even if their parents were very reluctantto do so as one child explained,

“From the beginning I really wanted to livein the institution. When I was taken to theinstitution in Semarang, I was really happy,but my parents were crying. I was only ingrade 4 of elementary school at the time.”

There seemed to be, however, littleattempt by the institutions to assess at the timeof admission how children felt about theirplacement or the extent to which they wereprovided a choice in that matter. A fewinstitutions did stress to the parent or personaccompanying the child that it was importantfor the child to want to be admitted butgenerally this was stated in order to minimizethe possibility of the child running away and tofaciliate the work of the institution. In Suci Hatiin Aceh for example,

“If it is felt that the administrativerequirements and criteria have beensatisfied, the child is then interviewed inconnection with the child’s motivationfor coming to the institution – whetherhe is doing so of his own volition or isbeing compelled to do so by his parents.This interview is necessary, according tothe head of the institution, as there hadonce been a case of a child in grade 1 of

junior high school who was forced toenter the institution by his parents. Hewas only able to stand living there for 2weeks.”

Questionable practices by some of thestaff doing the recruitment were raised bysome children including in UPRS, thegovernment institution in West Kalimantan. Inone case, a child told of being given falseinformation by the recruiter with promises ofmuch better facilities than actually provided.The child was told that in the institution “...there was a swimming pool, he said we could gofor walks along the beach all the time. Because ofhis lies I decided to come here.” Similarly, inanother case a child explained how, after hismother died and his father was placed in aninstitution for the elderly, he was forced by hisfather to enter the institution,

“The father of the child met with theofficial and after that instructed heinstructed his son to enter theinstitution. ‘I met dad and he ordered meto enter the institution.’ ‘Dad lied to me. Hesaid there was a swimming pool, that theinstitution was nice, that we would alwaysbe going places, that there was lots ofchicken to eat. That made me want to comehere.”

In many cases, children told of being forcedto enter the institution by their parents in thefirst instance but slowly having grown used toit, as illustrated by one child in PEPABRI in WestKalimantan,

“Back in 1997, I was still living in thedormitory in Singkawang. Then my auntcame to offer me a place in the institution.In the end I came to like it. While I wasforced to come here at the beginning, Ieventually became used to it.”

Generally institutions saw children’sconsent to the placement as a question ofadaptation. If after a while the child started toadapt then it would not cause a problem forthe institution. The Manager of Harapan in NTBfor example told of one case of a girl who wasforced to stay in the institution by her uncledue to economic reasons,


page

128

During the one week that Dewi was at home,she was continuously being scolded by her mother.When staff from the institution came to collecther, she didn’t want to go. However, after sheeventually became bored at home, she finallyconsented to be brought back to the foundation.Upon her arrival, she was first counselled by thefoundation’s manager, and then brought to theinstitution. Since then, she has been living in theinstitution. But even after one month, she has stillnot fully adjusted to life there. She continues toremain aloof from the other children and fails toproperly perform her chores (as part of “picket”duty). This was confirmed by a member of staff, whosaid that since Dewi has been in the childcareinstitution, she has done almost nothing. While shewould turn up for her chores, she would frequentlythen fail to perform them as she was embarrassedin front of the other children. Her chores in theinstitution consisted of doing kitchen work.However, Dewi is not able to carry out such workas she had never been taught to do so at home.

In reality, if Dewi was still living with her family,she would be closer to her parents, and would notsuffer as a result of being deprived of her parents’love and affection. However, both her mother andthe childcare institution authorities want her toremain in the home so that she can learn discipline,receive proper food, and concentrate on herstudies. In the childcare institution, they say, shecan receive help with her lessons from the otherchildren, while at home there is no one to help her.In reality, however, there is no guarantee that thesehopes will be fulfilled. For example, Dewi waspunished at school recently, for failing to do herhomework.”

“At first she didn’t like it here. She oftencried, but slowly she became happy stayingin the institution as she has many friendsand can go to school here.”

The child also confirmed this,

“When I first came here, I didn’t like it. Butslowly I began to like living here as I’d madelots of friends, and the carers are good,especially Mr. S, who really encourages meto study”.

Some children however, never adaptedand in those cases they would often run away

“While parents are the ones who normallymake the decision about placing a child in aninstitution, not all children agree to stay there. Onechild explained why she did not want to stay in achildcare institution: “Because I don’t want to beseparated from my mum.” As was recounted by oneof the staff “Dewi’s parents were even crying whenthey left her here, as she didn’t want to stay.” In theend, the child had to stay as her mother and thefoundation staff gave her no alternative. Accordingto the childcare worker and Dewi’s peers, she hasstill not adjusted to life in the childcare institution.This is indicated by the fact that she is unwilling tothe chores set for her by the staff. In fact, she has inthe past shirked her chores completely. In addition,she continues to remain aloof from the otherchildren. It could be a form of protest against beingforced to live in the childcare institution.

Dewi has attempted to return home on anumber of occasions. She first asked permissionfrom the staff, but when this was refused, shereturned home anyway. “I missed mum. I wanted tostay with mum. But when I got home, I was scolded andtold to come back here.” Dewi’s statement accordswith what the institution’s staff had to say: “Dewihas attempted to return home 3 times. She’s differentfrom the other children. She’s high caste (Brahmin caste).She doesn’t want to live in the institution but her motheris determined that she will stay here. I have to take myhat off to her parents.” In reality, Dewi’s parents livequite close to the childcare institution so that sheis able to walk home. According to the staff, Dewi’smother decided to place her in the institution sothat she could concentrate on her studies. Theinstitution manager concurred with this.

The Case of Dewi, 14 year old girl (NTB)

from the institution or never fully accept theirsituation. The case of Dewi in NTB (in thebox) is a clear illustration of what can happenwhen the placement is decided by the parentsagainst the wishes of the child.

It is also important to note that in manycases, particularly in relation to institutions runas part of Islamic boarding schools or otherfaith based institutions that run their ownschools, children and even sometimes theirfamilies understood the placement not somuch as entering a care institution but enteringa boarding school. This is reflected in the


page

129

requiring any individual plan beyond keydecisions about which school, where andsometimes which food in relation to youngerchildren.

Few of the institutions understood or hadheard of the concept of ‘care plans’ outside ofthe Government institutions and institutionswhich were focused on providing a familyreplacement. Those that did know the termunderstood it as meaning some form of generalplanning for the activities in the institutions.As the Manager of Al Amin in West Kalimantanexplained,

“To be frank, Miss, the only services Iprovide are free education, 3 meals a day,school uniforms, and sarongs and clothesevery Lebaran. That’s provided theinstitution has enough money. I don’t have

any special service plan, except for thosechildren who are junior high school andwant to go to senior high school. I offerthem the chance of continuing on tomainstream senior high school or to attendthe vocational school. That’s the way it is,Miss.”

The same was found in the Governmentrun institutions, like Nirmala in Aceh forexample,

“According to the head of theinstitution, there are no care plans foreach child. The services provided by theinstitution are general in nature,whether connected with physical,emotional or social needs. They coverformal education up to graduation from

language and terminology used by theseinstitutions and the children saying they are ina ‘pesantren’ and that they are ‘students’. This,together with the focus on education in muchof the childcare institutions certainly seemedto reinforce among children a feeling that theywere entering a form of ‘boarding’ schoolrather than a care institution which in turnmay also be less stigmatising for them.

Care planning

Not a single institution out of the 36childcare institutions assessed made use of, orhad, care plans for the children, written orotherwise. As we have seen above theseinstitutions see their role primarily as ensuringaccess to education and ‘care’ in itself is simplynot seen as a crucial aspect of their work. It isinstead seen as ‘providingfor the needs’ of childrenso they can be schooled.Having a care plan is acrucial element ofprofessional services forchildren in alternative care.The aim of a care plan isto ensure that every childreceives services that areclearly suited to theirindividual needs andsituation. The plan enablesthose providing the services as well as theindividual child to define the goals of theplacement, its time frame, where it is leadingto in terms of the child’s longer term care, aswell as to set roles and responsibilities forachieving those.

In a context where the primary aim ofthe institution was seen as providing access toeducation, the aim of the placement was simplydefined within the parameters of schooling andgraduation became the main target. As a resultreviewing the placement before that target wasreached was simply not seen as an optionunless something went wrong. At the sametime, accessing education as well as other basicneeds related to it (a place to stay, food) wereunderstood as collective needs shared by allchildren in the same way and therefore not


page

130

high school, religious education,vocational training, and the meeting ofphysical needs (clothing, food andshelter).”

The Head of Harapan in NTB similarlyexplained,

“This institution doesn’t have a care planfor each child. What we have is a plan tosatisfy the needs of the children based ontheir educational level, and transport to andfrom school.”

The concept of a care plan was particularlyalien for the institutions that were run as partof islamic boarding schools where services forchildren from the care institutions were usuallyidentical to those provided of children in theboarding school. In Darul ’Ulum Al-Munnawwarah in Aceh for example, asexplained by its manager,

“The only plan we have is general in nature,and focuses on education, basic needs. It’sthe same for all the children, bothmadrasah and salafiah children. Whenreviewing day-to-day activities, we focus onthe 5 obligatory prayers, who performsthem and who doesn’t, and the records keptby the Haris (class prefects who recordviolations of the rules by children).”

In Darul Aitam, the possibility ofresponding on an individual basis to childrenin their care was even felt to be potentiallyproblematic,

“All of the children receive the sameservices. If they see the carers giving specialtreatment to one or two of the children,they’re going to get jealous and feel thatthey are being neglected. The carers want toavoid this. So, all the children are providedwith services on a generalized basis.”(Interview with staff)

To the extent that some of the institutionsunderstood the need to provide individualisedservices to children, this was invariably referredto in the context of education as was the casefor example, in Muhammadiyah Lhoksemawein Aceh,

“The institution’s manager believes thatthey provide individual services, but thisis apparently confined to the educationalsphere, as revealed by (a member ofstaff):

“For example, planning for the provision ofeducation services. For children in grade 3of high school, if they have the ability, we tryto help then get into higher education. Ifthey don’t have the ability, it will be enoughif they graduate from high school, and thenwe return them to their parents. What’s thepoint in forcing them to go to college if theydon’t have the ability?”

In Darul Hikmah in NTB, it was found that,“As regards planning services for the children,the institution only plans the educationalprogress of the children, whether they will beenrolled in MT (Madrasah Tsanawiyah) or MA(Madrasah Aliyah). This is based on theirprogress at school when they first enter theinstitution. One of the criteria employed forthis purpose is their report cards from theirprevious schools.”

The Manager of Darurrokhmah in CentralJava also explained his institution’s approachto services as primarily collective,

“Generally speaking, we don’t provideservices on an individualized basis. Wenormally ask them which school they wantto go to. They can choose between stateschool, Islamic elementary school (MI), stateor private junior high school, or MTS. It’s upto them.”

Assessements relating to children’sindividual needs tended to revolve essentiallyaround their educational needs. Children’sdevelopment and their emotional, social andpsychological needs were seen in light of thosegoals. Children had to be able to ‘withstand’staying in the institution and to feel goodenough and secure enough to study and fullfilltheir educational needs. This is not to say thatnone of the institutions recognised the broaderneeds of children but generally ‘care’ wasunderstood as something simple, somethingwhich children get anyway from theirsurrounding as long as what are deemed their


page

131

basic needs (food, roof over their head,education) are fulfilled. In that regard, theconcept of a ’family way’ of providing serviceswas often referred to by managers or staff,meaning ‘informal’, ‘natural’ and often given inopposition to what was seen as a ‘professional’approach.

In Dharma Laksana for example, it washighlighted that

“The foundation established theinstitution out of a sense of love. Theservices provided to the children arelike those provided in a regular family .They are primarily concerned with howthe children can receive an education.Besides education, the children alsoneed a roof over their heads and food.There is no professional approach tothe provision of services. The staffconsist of foundation workers, most ofwhom are also Hindu religiousworkers.”

Where individual needs were identifiedoutside of education it almost always referredto what was seen as ‘a problem’ in relation tothe child’s behaviour or adaptation. This iswhere children’s individuality was recognised,discussed and even responded to. This wasemphasized clearly by the manager of WoroWiloso, a government run institution for girlsin Central Java,

“In general, the standard of servicesprovided to all the children is the same.There is no differentiation, save where aproblem arises. Then the child will need tobe admonished, scolded, treated differently.”

The situation was clearly different inrelation to institutions which were focused onproviding ‘family care’. SOS Desa Taruna didtake into consideration some of the child’sindividual characteristcs including age andreligion before making a decision as to whichfoster mother would be given responsibilityfor the child. The emphasis though seemed tobe more on the wishes and needs of the fostermothers as well as the practical organisationalneeds of the institution rather than the child’sown needs and wishes. In addition, as the stated

purpose of the placement was the creation ofa new family for the child, review of placementwas not considered unless the biologicalparents of the child requested to have theirchild back. In the rare instances where thisoccured, the institution carried out a fullassessment of the family’s capacity to providebefore agreeing to return the child. A majorpart of the foster mother’s role involvedensuring that the individual child’s progress anddevelopment throughout the placement wereassessed and recorded. Review did take placeon the basis of regular meetings where thefoster mothers met and discussed issues ofconcern. In Dr. J. Lukas, the system for assessinga child’s needs and reviewing his or herprogress was much more informal. It reliedprimarily on the ‘care parents’ ensuring thatthe children in their care were developing welland socialising well. Again, review of placementwas not considered as the institution saw itself,as in the case of SOS Desa Taruna, as having ineffect ‘adopted’ the children. On the otherhand, that relationship did not seem tocontinue once the ‘carers’ were of retirementage. Strangely for an institution which aims tocreate families, the child was moved on toanother care family as soon as its carers weredue to retire. Not suprisingly, this had createdin the past some issues with children unableto adapt to their new families after years ofbeing cared by another.

In the case of Sayap Kasih in NorthSulawesi which cared for children with bothphysical and mental impairement, individualcare was clearly understood as crucial as mostof the children required full time carers. Thechildren were assessed and put into groups of4 or 5 according to what was deemed to betheir capacity at a physical and intellectual level.Each group was then assigned to a carer whichwas then replaced according to a shift systemto ensure 24 hours care. As mentioned above,Sayap Kasih did initially view children’splacements as a temporary solution but in lightof families’ lack of willingness or capacity totake back their children, the placements werein the end viewed as permanent. This, in manyways, had created real challenges for thatinstitution as it sought to raise funds to


page

132

continue its work for the longer term. Havingstarted on the premise that most of thechildren in its care would not live long or thatthose that did would be taken back by theirfamilies, the institution was now caring forchildren who were living longer and requiredpermanent care for the foreseeable future.

Care and other services

The approach to ‘care’ taken by theinstitutions assessed could be broadlysummarised under three main headings: theprovision of education (formal and informal),the creation of cadres, and finally the creationof a replacement family. In some ways theseapproaches were not mutally exclusive as forexample the approach taken by the institutionsunder the Hidayatullah network with its focuson creating ‘cadres’ was not unsimilar to thattaken by institutions that aimed to createreplacement families. Both were premised uponcreating a new family and social environmentand discouraged contact and relations with thebiological family and the home environment.Both also represented a form of informal‘adoption’ by the institution. On the other hand,some of the Government institutions that werevery much focused on access to educationrather than the actual care needs of childrenwere using a system of family cottages and inthe case of Huke Ina in Maluku, children wereactually living with one of the carer and his/her family within those cottages. Thus, whilewe could identify some very clear trends inthe approach to child care taken by theseinstitutions and the way they understood theirrole, there was also a suprising amount ofdiversity in the way these services weredelivered in practice.

Out of the 36 childcare institutionsassessed, the following formats for servicedelivery was found:

a. Childcare institution with a dormitory or‘barrack’ (Hidayatullah, Ibnu Taimiyah,Darul Aitam, Darul Ulum, Darul Hikmah,Al Mutadhien, Nirmala, Al Ummah,Muhammadiayah Lhoksemawe, Dar-

rurokmah, Pamardi Utomo (SD children),Wahyu Yoga Dharma, Woro Wiloso.

b. Childcare institution composed of seriesof buildings including halls of residencewith separate bedrooms for a group ofup to 15 children (Eben Haezer, Patmos,Nurul Ikhlas, Prajapati, Ina Theresia,Pamardi (children SMP/SMA), CalebHouse, Suci Hati.

c. Childcare institution based aroundcottages (Huke Ina, Harapan, SOS DesaTaruna, Dr. J. Lukas, UPRS.

d. Childcare institution in a private home(Dharma Laksana, Muhammadiyah Cilacap,Muhammadiyah Meulaboh, Al Amin,Pepabri, Sayap Kasih, Lohoraung, AlHidayah, Dorkas, Nur Ilahi.

Most of the Islamic based childcareinstitutions had established that institutiontogether with, or on the side of, a pesantren(Islamic boarding school). While there weresome great similarities in the way services weredelivered in those institutions, there were alsosome real differences in the way they wereorganised and services were delivered tochildren. Probably the most typical exampleof this format could be found in Ibnu Taimyiahin West Kalimantan, an institution that is forall intent and purposes merged within apesantren. The research there found that theline drawn between children of the ‘childcareinstitution’ (‘Panti’) as opposed to children ofthe ‘pesantren’ was a complex one, relatingmainly to the child’s status as coming from anon fee paying family as opposed to childrenwhose families paid the school fees rather thanthese children having particular needs thatother children may not have.3

Children generally stayed in largedormitories like the children who were alsoattending the boarding school. There were fewadults given a care responsibility and usuallystaff was composed of the head of theinstitution (usually male), his wife, a cook anda security guard. Teachers from the schooloften doubled up as ‘carers’ and some lived onthe ground. The head of the institution was


page

133

often the head of the school and had teachingobligations.

Generally most children attended schoolwithin the pesantren in the compound butsome also attended schools in the community.In Hidayatullah in Maluku for example, theinstitution only provided elementary schooland children of junior and senior level went toschool outside in the community. Theseinstitutions were generally caring for both boysand girls as in the case of Hidayatullah or IbnuTaimiyah. Childcare institutions under theMuhammadiyah network however, tended tobe single sex or provide separate compoundsfor boys and girls. Muhammadiyah Lhoksemawein Aceh cared only for boys whileMuhammadiyah Meulaboh also in Aceh caredfor both girls and boys but in totally separatecompounds. On the other hand,Muhammadiyah Cilacap in Central Java caredfor both sexes but imposing a strict separationbetween gender. Darrurokhmah in Central Javawhich is under the NW network cared onlyfor girls while other NU or NW institutionstended to be mixed.

Pesantren traditionally have extremelysimple and limited facilities and this is seen aspart of the learning process. Children oftensleep on the floor with mats and washing andcleaning facilities are sparse. These institutionstend to care for high numbers of children,usually over a hundred and in some cases upto 300 children or more. Darul Ulum in Aceh,provides a typical example, with 176 childrenin its childcare institution and another 144children in its pesantren making it a total of320 children living on site.

On the other hand, institutions run forexample under the Muhammadiyah networkas in the case of Muhammadiyah Meulaboh forexample can have very modern facilities, basednot on dormitories but on small houses orhalls with bedrooms that are shared by arelatively small number of children. Theseinstitutions are usually built in or near theMuhammadiyah schools so that children canbe schooled ‘inside’ the institution.

Most of these institutions viewedthemselves first and foremost as boarding

AdmissionThe Ibnu Taimiyah childcare institution

(PSAA) essentially forms part of the IbnuTaimiyah pesantren program, with theprocess of accepting children into thechildcare institution being closely connectedwith that of accepting students into thepesantren. The managers said there weretwo ways in which children could beaccepted into the childcare institution:

Under the first option, children from poorfamilies are brought to the institution bytheir parents or guardians to secure theirplaces in the pesantren. Based on adeclaration of limited financial means, thechildren will be directly accepted into thechildcare institution. This accords them adifferent status to the other children in thepesantren. Under this first option, the

children first register with the pesantren.Those from poor families who are unableto afford the fees are then given theopportunity of becoming a child of the’panti’ (child of the institution).

The second option concerns childrenwhose parents were able to pay when theyfirst entered the pesantren. A change in theirstatus however meant that their parentsfound themselves unable to pay mid waythrough the children’s education. In suchcases, the parents bring a letter from theirLocal Neighborhood Association orCommunity Association certifying theirinability to pay their children’s school fees.The children may also directly relate theirfinancial problems to the management.

Ibnu Taimiyah: the pesantren with a childcare institution


page

134

schools and the terminology of ‘students’,‘teachers’ was generally used.

Other childcare institutions wereestablished as autonomous institutions andwere comprised of one big building or anumber of smaller buildings within a compound.These tended to have bigger halls of residenceseparating boys and girls. There were usally akitchen, dining room, a small number ofbathrooms and toilets and a place religiousworship. Children went to school outside inthe local community schools. These institutionstended to average about 40 children and a smallnumber of staff including a few carers eitherliving on the ground or in the nearbycommunity. Interestingly some of the faithbased institutions like Dharma Laksana forexample, were linked to the schools run bytheir parent organisation but that are quiteseparate from the institution. In those cases,

fees for the children are waived rather thanthe institution paying for children to go to localprivate or state schools.

The government has also developed anumber of multi services complexes whichhouse a range of social institutions includinginstitutions for ‘naughty children, institutionsfor the vocational training of children who havedropped out of school, rehabilitationinstitutions for subtance abusers, disabledpeople’s institutions, special protection Homesfor children who have been rescued fromtrafficking or violence as well childcareinstitutions. These government run institutionstend to have more staff and these are civilservants including a number of ‘structural’ and‘functional’ social workers. Housed into whatis usally a very large compound, the idea beingto bring a range of services together, thevarious institutions within it still seem to

According to one child: “We were able topay in grade 1 but we couldn’t pay for grade 2.So we told Ustad X (the institution head). Wetold him that our parents weren’t able to pay.”

The status of a child who finds himselfor herself unable to pay in thecircumstances described above (secondoption) changes from a pesantren studentto a child in care. Although they continueto study in the Ibnu Taimiyah, their rightsand obligations are different from thepesantren students. Unlike the pesantrenstudents, who have to pay for theirschooling, the ’panti’ children receive theirfood, accommodation and education freeof charge. “Those who are accepted as ’panti’children are provided with information on theirrights and obligations, including the fact thatthey don’t have to pay the normal fee of Rp160,000 per month (USD 16). They also havethe right to free accommodation, food andschooling.”

Besides being provided with free food,accommodation and schooling, anotherright that the children have, whichdifferentiates them from the paying

pesantren students, is to receive assistancefrom the department of Social Affairs in theform of clothes, food, and medicalallowance.

ObligationsNot only were the rights of the ’panti’

children different, they also had specificobligations that set them apart from the’pesantren’ children. They, unlike the fee-paying students, were required to performwork in return for the food, education andaccommodation they received. The workthey were required to perform wasgenerally “in the interests of the pesantren”.Thus, they were required to cook, collectfirewood, and clean the pesantren leader’shome. “The ’panti’ children are required to helpwith the work of the pesantren. This meansthe girls are required to cook side dishes, whilethe boys are required to cook the rice andcollect firewood.”

The different status between the ’panti’children and the ’pesantren children’ wasnot only known by the staff and


page

135

operate quite independently of one another.These compounds usually also contain separatehousing for staff. The number of children inthe ‘childcare institution’ can vary but generallyare quite high (around 60 children). Childrengo to school outside in the community. UPRSin West Kalimantan provides a fairly typicalexample of such institutions.

Family cottage types of institutions are stillbased within a compound that can be quitelarge but each of the cottage is containing a‘household’. Usually the carer lives there withhis or her family including biological childrenand the children in care live with them as inthe case of Dr. J. Lukas. In SOS Desa Taruna onthe other hand, foster mothers are not allowedto marry or have children of their own so theylive there only with the children placed in theircare. In the Government ‘family cottage’institutions, a number of model prevails. In

some cases the ‘cottages’ only house a groupof children and the carers live in their ownhouses on the compound as with UPRS. Inothers like Huke Ina in NTB, the children livetogether with the carer and his/her family butthey are rotated regularly from one family ofcarers to the other. They are also sometimesexpected to help the carers in terms of baby-sitting for the children or house chores.

The vast majority of institutionsunderstood their role as providing services thatwere exclusively residential. A few however,had also evolved some programmes to supportchildren who were still living with their families.For some, as was highlighted in the case ofDharma Laksana, financial support for children’seducation seemed to have evolved forpragmatic reasons rather than as a result of abelief that family support should be animportant role for the childcare institutions. It

management, but had also been explainedto the children by the head of the institutionat the time when they entered the PSAAIbnu Taimiyah. Thus, they knew that whilethey were pesantren students, they weredifferent from the other pesantren studentsas their upkeep was paid by the institution.Only the ’panti’ children were required to“work in the interests of the pesantren”.The fact that the other pesantren studentspaid fees exempted them from performingthe work that was required of the ’panti’children.

“In relation to the ’pesantren children’,sometimes they help...light work only...sometimes when the pesantren childrenask us for help, we help them too” (childfrom the institution).

While there were no specific rules, the workassigned to each child depended on his orher age and sex,

“Children of Tsanawiyah age arerequired to do work in the plantationand clean the house, while children ofAliyyah age are required to do thecooking.”

The allocation of duties also had regardto what were seen as different physicalcapacities between girls and boys.Consequently, the boys were generallyrequired to do work for which physicalstrength was needed (hoeing, cooking rice,fetching water, and collecting firewood),while the girls were assigned duties forwhich physical strength was not soimportant (like cooking side dishes, cleaningthe house, sweeping the yard, mopping thefloor). “The children work every afternoon. Theycook for the pesantren students. The boys cookthe rice while the girls cook the vegetables.”

Besides the obligation to work for theinstitution, the ’panti’ children were alsorequired to work for the institution for oneyear after they graduated for example, asteachers, supervising the performance ofreligious duties, or as carers. Although theyreceived some payment, it was notascertained whether it was adequate.According to the wife of the head offoundation, if a child refused to perform thisduty, he or she would not receive theirgraduation certificate (case of IbnuTaimiyah)


page

136

was the failure to convince parents to part fromtheir children that had led to the provision ofsuch programmes. Others had already filledtheir residential care capacity but were still ableto access financial and other support whichcould benefit more children particularly fromthe surrounding communities as seemed to bethe case with Eben Haezer which providedfood and education assistance to 15 childrenliving in families near the institution. In othercases, the institutions were run by social andreligious organisations that provided a rangeof social assistance services to families in needand no links were made between theseinitiatives and the families of the children incare. This was the case for example with CalebHouse whose parent organisation was runningits own support programme for familiesaffected by the conflict before it established achildcare institution.

Instances of institutions providingassistance to children so they could be caredfor by their families were rare and only Patmosseemed to be providing assistance to somechildren in the surrounding communities nearthe institution so they could continue toreceive family based care. It provided financialsupport to 27 children living within theirfamilies covering the cost of their educationincluding fees and transport to school. Noneof the institutions assessed on the other hand,provided assistance to families as part of astrategy to return a child to his or her familyby supporting the capacity of that family tocare for them.

As we have seen, most of the institutionsunderstood their role primarily in terms ofensuring children’s access to formal educationbut also to informal education, particularly interms of religious education. Other servicessuch as providing food, a place to stay tendedto revolve around fulfilling that priority and asa result the ‘care’ of children was generallyunderstood in terms of ‘managing’ children intheir care. In that sense it is not suprising thatterms such as ‘memelihara’ (to raise, to rear)and ‘menampung’ (to accommodate, to take in)tended to be used by the institutionsthemselves to refer to the services theyprovide to children in their care.

All of the institutions apart from thosethat focused specifically on creating ‘newfamilies’ spoke of their services in terms of:

1) a place to stay;

2) access to formal education includingassociated costs (transport, books,uniform etc);

3) food;

4) informal education including religiouseducation but also in a few casesvocational training;

5) access to health services if the child is sickand access to hygiene in some cases;

The staff at Muhammadiyah Lhoksemaweprovided a fairly typical explanation of theservices provided by the childcare institutions,

“The services provided to the children wholive in this institution are as follows: the fulfilmentof their basic needs, such as food, drinks, clothes,education, healthcare and recreation. We don’tprovide any services outside the institution, andthe same services are provided to every child,without any distinction.”

Staff at Darul Aitam articulated in similarways what services they felt the institutionprovided to children,

“The services provided to the children are:First, formal education (in school) and non-formal education (in the institution), withthe following facilities: 1) schooling in one ofthe schools run by the Wathan NahdatulWathan Foundation, with the children beingexempted from paying school fees; 2) booksto the value of Rp 40,000 per child at thestart of each school year; 3) a new schooluniform every Ramadhan.

Second, healthcare, with each child beinggiven a bar of soap, 2 small packets ofdetergent, 1 small tube of toothpaste(sometimes), medicines from theinstitution’s health room, and visits from theCommunity Health Center nurse to theinstitution’s health room every Thursdaybetween 09:00 and 14:00, at the latest.But, if none of the children are sick and


page

137

turn up at the health room, the nurse goeshome early.”

In addition, as almost all of theseinstitutions were faith based, religiouseducation and practice was seen asfundamental to the services they provided tochildren as well as the way these services weredelivered. In the context of the traditionalIslamic boarding schools, religious educationwas the primary form of education but allinstitutions saw religious practice and teachingas a key part of the services they provided tochildren and of the life of the institution.Government institutions tended also to referto ‘spiritual guidance’ meaning religious andmoral guidance and in some cases referred alsoto ‘mental’ or ‘psychological guidance’ or evento ‘counselling’. In the absence of individualservices and care giving this tended to refer inpractice to the handling of what were deemed‘problems’ that occurred with children suchas when they broke rules, did not carry outtheir chores, had trouble adapting to theinstitution, did not carry out religious practicesas required or had difficulties at school.

Two institutions provided more specialisedservices in addition to the above. Caleb Housein Maluku, as we have seen, focused on caringfor children affected by conflict and it providedsome form of trauma counselling through theservices of a psychologist as well as throughgroup sharing and religious teaching. SayapKasih, an institution caring for children withboth mental and physical disability in NorthSulawesi, had a physiotherapist providing twicea week treatment to the children within aspecially arranged room.

Providing emotional, psychological supportto children, creating bonds that are secure andloving, enabling the children to feel loved andable to grow was never referred to except inthe context of those institutions whose focuswas the creation of family unit as was the casein SOS Desa Taruna and Dr. J. Lukas. Whilethere were some references as we have seenin other institutions to ‘caring’ and providingservices in a ‘family way’, generally the care ofchildren was left to the children themselves.Adults managed the institution and the delivery

of services and would intervene when aproblem arose.

Older children were expected to do thecaring for the younger children. Most of theinstitutions assessed used a system of placingchildren of different ages together in a roomor dormitory to ensure that the older childrencould ‘watch over’ the younger children, helpthem adapt, do the chores, support them ifproblems arose and played a role of ‘biggersister or brother’. In Nur Ilahi for example,staff explained that, “The young children are putin the same rooms as older children, with the olderchildren being required to look after the youngerones.”

Similarly in Muhammadiyah Meulaboh itwas explained that,

“In each dormitory, whether the girls’ orboys’ dormitories, junior high schooland senior high school-age children aremixed. According to one carer, this wasso “the big kids can help look after theyounger children.” (Interview with femalestaff)

This arrangement was found to be the casein most of the institutions except SOS DesaTaruna, Sayap Kasih and Dr. J. Lukas. While insome institutions there would be an adult incharge of the dormitory or the rooms such asa ‘house mother or father’ or a ‘dormitoryhead’, older children were invariably seen totake on the ‘natural role’ of caring for theyounger ones, to guide them, support them indealing with daily tasks and following the rulesand the activities of the institution as well asto deal with any problem that may arise.

In fact it was found throughout thisresearch that children were clearly taking onthe care roles for one another and this, as wewill see in Section X on Personal Care, wasreflected in terms of the relationships they built,the way they related to the adults in chargeand the ways they adapted to cope and resolveproblems. With a few exceptions, in the absenceof significant adults with whom they could buildpersonal relationships and seek support,children were finding support and care amongeach other and this to quite a remarkable


page

138

degree. Another striking finding from thisresearch was that where children were ableto develop personal and supportiverelationships with adults in the institutions itwas often not with those who had been givenformal ‘care’ responsibility but instead with thesupport staff such as the cook, the wife of themanager or even the security guard. Theseindividuals often seemed to play a greater rolein terms of the children’s personal relationshipsand tended to reside in the institution andtherefore to be there outside of the formal‘work hours’. While in manycases the Manager of theinstitution and often his wifewould be seen as taking on a‘father’ and ‘mother’ role andreferred to as such, that rolein practice tended to belimited to moral and spiritualguidance, motivation anddiscipline.

This is not entirelysurprising bearing in mind thesmall number of staff inrelation to the number ofchildren in most of theinstitutions and in particular the very lownumber of ‘care staff ’ whose sole function wasto care for children. At the same time, it wasfound not to be simply a matter of lack of adultcarers or the fact that these tended to ‘doubleup’ as teachers or administrators or wentabout other work within the parentorganisation or the community. The role ofadults ‘carers’ seemed to be primarilyundertstood in relation to managing children’stime, their behaviour or compliance with therules and regulations of the institution ratherthan in terms of providing ‘care’.

In Huke Ina, for example, a governmentinstitution in the Island of Buru which caresfor children in family cottages headed by onecare staff together with his or her family, therole of the ‘carer’ was defined as follows,

“1. The carer is required to report to theschool should a child be sick or unable toattend school or take part in theinstitution’s activities;

2. To monitor the condition of the children,hygiene problems and discipline, and to befully accountable to the institution overall;

3. To provide guidance to the children bothon an individual and group basis as regardschool work, behavior and health;

4. To monitor the progress of the childrenat school;

5. To supervise meals in the dining room, andstudy in the workroom based on a ’rostersystem’.”

In Pamardi Utomo, a governmentinstitution that cares for boys in Central Java,the roles and responsibilities of carers wereexplained by the Head of institution as follows,

“It’s like this ..., we don’t have enough staffto provide individual care to each child. So,to maximize the level of individual servicesprovided, each staff member, besides his orher job description, is also responsible forsupervising groups and rooms. For example,Mr. H, besides the duties set out in his jobdescription, is also responsible forsupervising rooms 1 and 2. This is so as toensure maximum effectiveness, andsupervision and control of the children.”

“So, if every room has four children, twotimes four is eight, so each staff member isresponsible for 8 children. But sometimesone staff member may only be responsiblefor one room. So, that’s how we ensuremaximum efficiency and optimum services,besides the normal job descriptions.”


page

139

This emphasis on the carer’s role in termsof watching, overseeing, organising and guidingchildren was found across all of the institutionsin the six provinces. This was particularlyevident in relation to staff ’s role and work inreviewing children’s progress and development.

Review of the child’s progress/development

Only a handful of institutions assigned toa particular staff the responsibility to overseethe management and progress of individualchildren. This was found mainly in theinstitutions that were actually focused on carewhere such responsibility was clearly assignatedto the foster mother or ’foster family’ (SOSDesa Taruna, Dr. J. Lukas). In Sayap Kasih, carewas organised around a system of shift betweencarers who were assigned to a particular groupof 4 to 5 children. In some of the Governmentinstitutions staff tended to be formally assignedto a group of children but this responsibilitywas actually regularly shifted as in the case ofHuke Ina where children’s actual place of staywas ’rotated’ across the care families everysemester. In the case of UPRS on the otherhand, this ’care responsibility’ in practice wasonly evident in relation to reporting andresponding to disciplinary problems rather thanactual case management as explained by thestaff there,

“Based on the system of one carerbeing responsible for 1-2 children, theywill automatically have special plans forthe children for whom they’reresponsible, although this won’t be setdown in writing. That’s the way it’s beenoperating to date. So, if a child doessomething wrong, we also question thecarer. We tell him, “You’re responsible forthis child”. So they are responsible forthe behavior of the children assigned tothem.”

In Nirmala, on the other hand, one staffpointed out that,

“Reviews are never conducted, and the staffand carers are never involved in arrangingactivities in the home. This is all up to thehead. In fact, he is assisted primarily by his

wife in arranging activities, rather than theother staff. Also, not all of the staff live inthe institution. Most are only there duringwork hours from 08:00-15:00. Duringthese hours, the children are at school, andwhen they come back to the institution theyhave a rest. So, if you want to know aboutactivities here, you have to ask the head.”

In fact while the Government institutionstended to have formal procedures and formsin relation to the ’case management’ of childrenincluding the review of their progress, it wasclear that very little individual case work inpractice was taking place and when it did, itwas rarely for the right reasons. For a startwhile, Government institutions tended to havea higher ratio of staff per child, in reality mostof the staff in those institutions did not have arole or a responsibility in the actual care ofchildren.

Under the Government rules, socialworkers who are civil servants are divided into‘structural’ and ‘functional social workers’. Only‘functional social workers’ are meant to carryout actual practical work with clients and therewere very few functional social workers inmost of the Government institutions. Half ofthese institutions (4) did not have any.

In addition, under the government systemof professional social work, doing ‘case work’including ‘case management’ and ‘ caseconferencing’ is the only means for these socialworkers to be promoted and as such get higherwages and status. As a result, the researchfound that much of the actual case work thatwas being carried out with children wasprimarily seen by those social workers as ameans of getting ‘credits’ to upgrade theirranking rather than as a professional and longerterm engagment with these children. Theindividual case work rarely extended beyonda case file being established, some sort of aservice plan being determined and notesreferring to that case work could be shown.

The weaknesses of this system of socialwork was clearly highlighted in the case ofUPRS,

“If there was a social worker, a review couldbe carried out every month. But that


page

140

doesn’t happen as there’s never been asocial worker in the UPRS since it wasestablished. Social workers carry out reviewsso that they can increase their credits. Here,we carry out informal reviews. We’resupposed to have the equipment, likeweighing scales, health monitoringequipment, but I don’t know where theyare. I’ve never seen them. When the earlierchildcare institution was converted into thisUPRS, we drew up an inventory of assets.But I’ve no idea where it is. After the headof the institution moved to the Social AffairsOffice, he’s had no contact with us sincethen.” (Interview with staff).

Most of the other institutions, particularlythose based on a pesantren model or with afocus on providing religious and formaleducation, did not assign responsibility forindividual children to specific carers but to thehead of the dormitory or hall, usually inaccordance with gender so that a female ‘housemother’ or caretaker would be responsible forthe girls and a male one for the boys. Reviewgenerally was also collective and relatedprimarily to addressing what was felt to be aparticular problem with a child or with themanagement of the institution.

The review process, when it took place,tended to relate to a child’s progress at schoolincluding key decisions that may have to bemade about the child’s education or problemsthat may have occurred.

In Darul ’Ulum Al-Munnawwarah forexample,

“The development of the children takesplace through education, throughexaminations and repeats, noting whoperforms the obligatory prayers and whodoesn’t.” (Interview with the head ofinstitution)

That was also the experience of childrenin Darul Hikmah who explained, “They only everask us about how we’re doing at school, what ourgrades are, whether we have any difficulties.”

Generally, the review process was part ofan overall review of the operational issues in

the institution unless a ’problem’ or ’case’ arosein relation to a child as explained by themanager of Nurul Ikhlas, “Meetings of the carersand other staff take place 2 or 3 times per year,except where there is a pressing case that needsto be handled immediately.”

In Prajapati, a Buddhist run institution inNorth Sulawesi, this was also found to be thecase,

The carers meet on a routine basis everythree months, or as required. Normally theydiscuss the budget for maintaining thechildren, and conduct a collective appraisalof their well-being, including health andeducation, as well as any specialcircumstances affecting individual children,such as the case a number of years agowhere a child ran away as he wanted toreturn home. The foundation manager wasasked about how this was dealt with, andreplied that the child’s parents weresummoned and told that the child wishedto return home to his family.”

In the absence of individual case managers,review of children’s progress tended to beinformal as was the case in Al Amin,

“I’ve never actually conducted a formalreview. But we do have informal reviewsbased on our observations of the children’sbehaviour and conduct on a day-to-daybasis. I’ve never maintained special recordsor anything like that, let alone conductreviews on their family circumstances. Howcould I ever find the time for that? I have tolook after them on my own, and that’senough trouble as it is.” (Interview with thehead of institution)

The situation in Pepabri was similaraccording to its Manager,

“Well ... ‘review’ is maybe too formal a word... perhaps ‘discussion’ would be better. Butwe don’t have formal discussions. We do itwhile watching TV or cooking in the kitchen.Then we (the institution manager and staff)may sit around and discuss how thechildren are doing. Usually we talk aboutproblems with the children. We talk abouttheir day-to-day behaviour and conduct. If


page

141

there’s a problem, then we’ll talk about ittogether”

Generally the review tended also to becollective and did not provide any realopportunity for children to give feedback,input or make suggestions unless these werealready in line with staff as was found in thecase of Nirmala,

“Normally it’s me who conducts reviews bychatting with the children informally. Wecan do this whenever there’s nothing elsescheduled. But the children aren’t reallyinvolved. For example, last Friday, (the headof the institution) sat down with thechildren and asked them how things were.The children asked that a religious practicecompetition be held. In reality, this hadalready been planned, but we wanted towait for the children to suggest it. In actualfact what the children wanted was thesame as what had been planned by theinstitution. So the competition went ahead.”(interview with the head of institution)

On the other hand when a child’sbehaviour was deemed to be a ‘problem’ theprocess of review could become determinedlyformal, particularly in the case of Governmentinstitutions. In Harapan in NTB and PamardiUtomo in Central Java, the concept of ‘caseconference’ was used, involving the staff includingthe social workers and the carers as well asthe manager. What was discussed in those

meeting though related less to progress andmore to resolving what were deemedproblems as explained by the Manager ofPamardi Utomo,

“There’s so many staff here. Thedevelopment of the children needs to bemonitored. If a breach of discipline occurs,we discuss this jointly at a case conference,what action should be taken, and whatcaused the child to do what he did.”

“For normal children, we provide them withregular guidance. But for problem kids, wediscuss this jointly and take joint action soas to put these children back on the righttrack. A recalcitrant child will be givenindividual guidance. But if there’s noimprovement, then we’ll resort to groupguidance.”

While the Government institutionstended to have quite comprehensive forms forreviewing the individual progress of the childin relation to ‘physical’, ‘social’, ‘emotional’,‘psychological’, ‘spiritual’ development and evenin terms of the child’s personal sense of‘autonomy’ and ‘initiative’, these forms were inpractice rarely if ever used and only brief noteswere kept which focused primarily on whatwere seen as the key problems in the child’sbehaviour or educational progress.

In that regard, SOS Desa Taruna fared alot better. Foster mothers were not onlyprovided specific training in child care andprotection but assessing the progress ofchildren from a developmental perspective wasunderstood to be a key part of their role. TheManual for the organization specified that “Datashall be collected on the development of thechildren, reflecting their progress over the courseof the year. This will be focused on the strengths,capabilities and potential of each child inaccordance with his or her stage of development.”

The foster mothers kept informal noteson the development of children in their careand met once a month together to discussprogress and concerns.

An example of notes kept by one of thefoster mothers follows:


page

142

Review of services and management

The childcare institutions assessedgenerally did not see the need to review theservices or the approach taken to theseservices as what was provided was already pre-determined on the basis of the collective needsof children, in particular access to education.As we saw above, virtually none of theinstitutions felt the need to review theirmission statement or the approach taken bythe institution in light of staffs or children’sexperiences. Where review did take place itwas generally in relation to the budget available,the needs of the institution or its parentorganisation and operational issues such as theneed to replace children who had graduated,quotas having to be filled and arrangementsaround staffing.

As a result, as one staff in Nirmala statedthe following, “It seems that the services providedby the institution hardly change from year to year.The head rarely holds evaluation meetings.”

One aspect that did get reviewed in anumber of institutions was children’s sleepingarrangement. Quite a number of theinstitutions, particularly government ones,practised something referred to as ‘rolling’whereby children would be moved from oneroom or one dormitory to the next on aregular basis to ensure all children had ‘goodrelations’ but also to limit the possibility ofsome children getting too close while othersmay be left out. Decisions about rotation neverinvolved children.

In Harapan for example, “The institutionconducts a review once a year of where the

(D...NAME OF THE CHILD)

D finished kindergarten at the end of the 2005-2006 school year. In August 2006, at the age of6, he entered grade 1 of elementary school.

D finds it easy to mix and adjust to his new surroundings. He has demonstrated positive physicaland psychological progress. Physically, he is not fat, but he has grown quickly. His hemoglobin levelis good at up to 11.8.

He now plays regularly, not only with children of his own age, but also with the bigger children, forexample, playing hide and seek, and marbles. As regards communication, he can almost speakperfectly. He can relay messages from his teachers, friends and the other foster mothers.

What is particularly encouraging about D is that he is a good mixer, both in SOS and at school.

He can almost count 1-10. Although he can’t yet read properly, he can write the letters of thealphabet. When some of these are put together, he can read them. Two months ago, he participatedin the drum band as part of the end of the year kindergarten ceremony.

D displays some sense of responsibility within the family. For example, he will help take out thegarbage with the older children. He also does his homework in the evening without having to betold to. His teacher is happy as D has changed a lot after two years in kindergarten, and is nowdeveloping normally like other children.

D participates in all SOS activities, for example, the religious service on Thursdays, story-telling onTuesday, physical exercise on Fridays, and Sunday school.

As regards eating, D is very good and will eat everything.

He is now able to feed himself and is no longer messy at the table. In his (foster) family, D is alsogood, and mixes easily. He is not shy or withdrawn, is quick to smile and is always friendly. D canbe said to be a cute child, his dream is to become a soldier.

June ‘06


page

143

children are placed. This involves moving thechildren from one cottage to another “so thatthey don’t get bored and become friends with allthe children.” (Interview with the head of institution)

The same procedure was used in DarulAitam, “Yes, they change rooms and roommatesevery year. The carers decide which rooms they’llgo to and who their roommates will be.” (interviewwith children)

Generally children saw this as unavoidable,in some cases as desirable and in quite anumber of cases as problematic. In Huke Inawhere children lived in a cottage with the carerand his/her family, rotation was seen as a wayof ensuring that children would be moreadaptable and that different carers withdifferent styles would be experienced. Forchildren, it meant that those carers they feltclose to would only be there for them for asix months period while carers with whomthey did not feel comfortable would beexperienced on a regular basis.

The fact that most institutions did not feelthe need to review their services except interms of the operational needs of theinstitution, meant that children were rarely, ifever asked to comment or provide feedbackon the services they were provided. Despitebeing the primary beneficiaries and thereforestakeholders in those services, the approachtaken was very much one of ‘charity’ wherebyanything that was provided to these childrenwas better than what they would have got athome and as such, should be received gratefully.

The implications of this approach werewell highlighted in the case of Darul ’Ulum Al-Munnawwarah and could equally be said toapply to almost all of the other institutionsassessed,

“The services provided by thisinstitution are in general only concernedwith meeting the basic needs of thechildren, such as food, clothing, shelter,healthcare and education. Serviceprovision is not based on an assessmentof the children’s needs. The interviewsrevealed that service reviews werenever conducted by either the

institution head or the carers. Thus,there is no way of knowing what theobjectives and processes applied by theinstitution management are, or whetherthey are in line with the predeterminedplan.”

This approach not only runs counter tothe provisions of international and nationalstandards in relation to the care of children asstated in the Convention on the Rights of theChild and in Law no 23 on Child Protection, italso means that none of the institutions werereally in any position to evaluate their workand services and ensure that they were actuallydelivering what they set out to deliver forchildren.

Children leaving care and after care

In a context where placement in care wasalmost always framed in terms of access toeducation, review of placement was seen asrelevant only in the context where the childhad graduated or had failed to progress atschool. Most of the institutions made clear tochildren and their families that the child wouldbe staying in the institution until the end ofsenior high school (SMA) unless the child didnot progress at school or broke some key rulesof the institution.

This was explained by a staff fromMuhammadiyah Lhoksemawe,

“All of the children understand that thisinstitution is only here to help themgraduate from high school. After that, theyhave to leave and live independently in thecommunity. If, however, a child causesproblems or does something seriouslywrong while he’s here, like stealing orrefuses to follow the rules, then we will stopproviding him with services. In other words,he will be sent back to his parents orguardian.”

The children in Muhammadiyah Meulabohin Aceh, for example, did not know in any detailwhat was in the agreement between theirfamily and the institution in relation to theirplacement but what they did know is that if


page

144

they did not progress at school or their gradeswere not sufficiently high they would be senthome. In one case, a girl that had failed to passher year was expelled and sent home and theinstitution was no longer paying for hereducation.

The emphasis on children’s placementbeing totally dependent on their educationalprogress and on their abiding by the rules ofthe institution underlines just how little theneed for ’care’ was taken into considerationor even seen as an issue. While theseinstitutions publicized their focus on childrenwho were orphaned or whose families wereunable to care for them, it was striking that inpractice they recognised that sending a childback to the care of his or her family was verymuch an option. As the Manager of PEPABRIexplained,

“... I’m sure they fully understand. I’veexplained to them since they entered the institutionthat I can only see them through to high schoolgraduation. That’s if they behave themselves andreally want to get an education. If they don’t obeythe rules, then I’ll send them back to their parentsor guardian. If they’re ill-behaved and can’t becontrolled, I’ll just send them home!”

In practice though, it seemed that manyinstitutions found ending the placement atgraduation harder than expected. The realitythat a high school certificate is in no way aguarantee to find work and the fact that manychildren had aspirations to further their studiesmeant that many institutions in practice hadto find ways to support children stepping outof the institution. While many recognised thisas a need, few had a system in place to supportthat process. What was found were some adhoc initiatives to support the ‘brighter students’to access scholarships whenever possible andsome limited attempts at providing vocationaltraining or finding a child a work placement.These seemed to have evolved mainly as anafterthought by the staff of the institutions, asis well illustrated by Nurul Ikhlas,

“Originally, the plan was to educate thechildren up to high school level. However,after some of the children graduated anddidn’t know where to go, I thought to myself

that maybe we could support theireducation to a higher level. In the end, wedecided to send those children who wantedit on to higher education.”

In most cases, these efforts seemed to beprimarily the result of a personal initiative froma manager or some staff rather than as a partof the services provided by the institution ascan be seen from the approach taken inPamardi Utomo, a government institution forboys in Central Java,

“It’s like this, I say to the children, what’simportant is that you study, with goodcharacter and personality. If you get goodmarks all the time, don’t worry, I’ll keep youat school... That’s the way it is.... So, if a childkeeps doing well and is always at the headof the class, I’ll send him to college.”

In some cases, this personal and ad hocapproach led to some children feeling thatgetting access to higher education was less amatter of academic achievement and more amatter of being in the ‘good book’ of themanager or staff of the institution,

“Yeah, if you’re close to M (the head) ...those who are close to her may be they can...” – meaning that if a child was close tothe institution head, it would be possiblefor him or her to continue theireducation.”

A few institutions had a somewhat moreopen and formal process to support childrenaccessing higher education, particularly thoseinstitutions whose parent organisation also ranor were linked to higher education programs.Institutions under the Hidayatullah network,for example, sent those deemed to be the mostperforming students to the Islamic HigherEducation institutions run by its organizationin Balikpapan or Surabaya. Similarly, Prajapati,a childcare institution in North Sulawesi runby a Buddhist organisation, enabled performingstudents from the institution to enter theuniversity run by its parent organisation(Universitas Sari Putera Indonesia Tomohon(UNSRIT) ) which is located on the samecampus than the childcare institution. In thosecases, children were allowed to remain in theinstitution well past the 18 years age limit.


page

145

In fact a number of institutions hadchildren remaining in care well past the SMAage limit. In Muhammadiyah Meulaboh forexample, children who had done sufficientlywell at senior high school were given anopportunity to stay on in the institution as longas they could afford to pay for their universityfees and they agreed to carry out some workin the institution in exchange for a place tostay and food. This access however alsodepended on the available number of beds inthe institution at any given time. Similarly inNur Ilahi in West Kalimantan one high schoolgraduate had been allowed to stay on aftergraduation. Children who did particularly wellat school were helped to look for ‘fosterparents/sponsors’, usually donors who wereproviding support to the institution and whomay be willing to pay for that child’s highereducation.

“This year the institution sent one ofthe children to university as she hadperformed outstandingly at school andwas highly motivated to go on to highereducation.” (interview with the head ofinstitution)

Other institutions also tried to providechildren who had finished high school somelevel of support either by finding sponsors toenable them to continue their educationsomewhere else or by supporting them to findwork. Al Hidayah in Maluku provided transportmoney or covered the administrative costs ofchildren who were keen to pursue highereducation through a pesantren in Java. EbenHaezer in West Kalimantan looked forsponsors for children who were particulargifted academically or who were interested instudying at the organisation’s theologicalschool. Those who did less well at school weresupported to find work particularly with theagricultural companies that already had linksto Eben Haezer such as the citrus plantationand the palm oil plantation located near theinstitution.

Some institutions provided vocationaltraining specifically with the aim of facilitatingthe transition to work upon leaving care.Patmos in NTB provided children who had

graduated with the opportunity to follow somevocational training for 3 months such as inbeauty care, sowing or computer skills beforebeing sent home. Harapan, a governmentinstitution also in NTB provided an orientationcourse after graduation for 2 to 3 days on lifein the community and finding work,

“Children who are in grade 3 of high schoolor vocational school normally receive specialcounseling about leaving the institution. Theyalso receive help with seeking employment.I have a friend who is now working in arestaurant thanks to help from theinstitution.” (Interview with children)

In contrast to this, institutions whose focuswas primarly on the creation of a new familyfor the child and on the provision of care didnot limit the child’s placement to high schoolgraduation. SOS Desa Taruna in Central Javaenabled children to stay after senior high schooluntil they were 21 or up to 26 years of agewhere the young person was finishing universityor still unable to find work. After 26 though,the child was not allowed to stay in SOS anylonger no matter what his or her situation was.In order to facilitate that transition out of theinstitution, children were encouraged to visitand able to stay with their foster mothers whenvisiting. Some of the children who hadgraduated were also found employmentincluding within one of the SOS Desa Tarunain Indonesia.

Dr. J. Lukas in North Sulawesi on the otherhand did not place any age restriction on thechild/young adult staying with his or her carefamily. Children were expected to move outonly when they were able to be independentand support was provided either to accessuniversity education or to access vocationaltraining to enable the young men or womento find work.

The situation of children in Islamic basedinstitutions whose primary aim was thetransformation of the child into a ‘cadre’ fortheir organisation was clearly very different.For institutions under the Hidayatullahnetwork such as Hidayatullah Liang in Malukuand Al Muthadien in North Sulawesi, placementactually never ended unless the child had


page

146

broken some key rules or was unable to adapt.Children who came to the end of Islamic schoolsenior level were either sent to theorganisation’s Islamic teaching schools orbecame full time ‘cadres’ and staff of one ofthe childcare institutions under the network.Unique to the institutions under that networkis the fact that upon coming of age, youngpeople in the institution are married to othercadres within the network. The marriage,where the partner is selected by the seniorleaders and administered through a massceremony, is seen as a key part of the processof ‘kaderization’ within that network. Oncemarried the young couple is sent to work ascarers and religious teachers in one of the manyinstitutions run by the network acrossIndonesia. The aim is thus to spread theorganisation’s teaching and to create new‘families’ that are focused on running andcreating new institutions and are moreconnected to the network than their ownbiological family or community.

To achieve that aim, these institutionsoften move children in their care to otherHidayatullah run institutions located far awayfrom the child’s family and community so thatthe links with those families become moretenous while the links with the organisationbecomes strengthened. This is one of the manystages in the development of a cadre forHidayatullah which involves among other thingsthe recruit being literally ‘orphaned’, in thesense of cutting those links with his or herfamily environment. This is meant to mirrorthe stages undergone by Nabi Muhammadhimself, including the fact that he was also anorphan. In addition to being married, a youngperson finishing islamic high school leveleducation in Hidayatullah is expected to workin the institution for at least a year as avolunteer, as a mark of servitude and acontribution in kind to the organisation.

In Al Muthadien the process of becominga cadre commences with the relinquishmentof all social attributes pertaining to the childbefore his entering the Al Muthadiencommunity. This phase is based on theexperience of the Prophet Mohammad as anorphan. Every “santri” (student of Islamic

boarding school) must relinquish his ties withhis parents and siblings and live as a memberof the Al Muthadien community as an orphanwho owns nothing and relies on no one exceptGod. The next stage involves the cadre servingas childcare institution managers – organizingeverything regarding cleaning, running of thekitchen, and seeking donors for the pesantren.The next stage involves becoming an employeeor a trader, once again following the exampleof Mohammad, who became a vendor of goodsbelonging to another (Khadijah). The child atthis stage is given greater opportunities tomanage the activities of others, such as bybecoming a counsellor/teacher or to work inbusinesses belonging to the pesantren. The laststage is to get married – this is when the newcadre accepts responsibility for rearing a family.This stage is based on the marriage ofMohammad to Siti Khadijah. When the “santri”is considered by his mentors to be bothmentally and spiritually ready, he will be marriedto a “santriwati” (female santri), who hasreached the same stage in the cadre-moldingprocess. The entire process up until themarriage stage is organized in every detail bythe “murobbi” (guidance) council.

Other Islamic based childcare institutionstook a different approach and children did leavethe institution upon graduation. Some, however,in particular those that combined an Islamicboarding school with a childcare institution alsorequired that graduates work in the institutionfor a period of a year as a contribution backto the organisation. In Ibnu Taimiyah forexample, in West Kalimantan, “After graduationfrom Aliyah (equivalent of high school), thegraduates are required to work for one year in theinstitution by teaching in the school or assistingthe institution in some other way, such as workingin the kitchen.” (Interview with head ofinstitution)

In addition, in a number of institutions theresearch found that carers and staff had actuallypreviously been in the care of that institution.This was found to have happened both formally,where the institution recruited them tobecome staff, and informally where their rolehad simply transitioned as the child becamean adult and did not leave the institution. In Al


page

147

Hidayah for example, two children who hadalready graduated ended up staying in theinstitution and were filling a range of staff rolesresulting apparently from a shortage of staff.Similarly in Nurul Ikhlas in Maluku, 10 of thestaff were previously children in the care ofthe institution who were given responsibilityafter turning 18 years of age for some of thework in the institution, in particular the careof children, with only one who works as anadministrative staff actually being paid.

In Caleb House in Maluku, the institutionfelt that 7 of the children who had alreadyreached 18 years of age and finished high schoolwere not ’ready’ to leave and as a result theyhave been allowed to stay on and are beingsupported through higher education. Asexplained by the head of the institution,

“... many of them become disturbed asthey’re not ready to go back to thecommunity ... when they’re told that theireducation in the institution is coming to anend, they get really disturbed, they startraving at night.” Following an evaluationmeeting of the staff and carers, it wasdecided that the children could continueto live in the home until they finishedcollege, but that they would have to helprun the institution and look after theother children.”

In Al Ikhlas in NTB, more than half of thestaff had previously been in the care of theinstitution before becoming its staff.

For most of the children in care, theprospect of going home was felt to be both

exciting and daunting. Many had beenseparated from their families and communitiesfor years at a time, some had not seen theirfamilies for long as 9 years. Returning to thatunfamilar and unknown world clearlypresented huge challenges and fears. Leavingthe institution for many of the children meantleaving behind their entire social and emotionalnetwork, particularly the other children in theinstitution who had become the key figures ofattachment in their lives throughout thesecrucial years of development. Children in manycases saw graduation and leaving the institutionas a time of high anxiety,

“I was really upset yesterday ... I thoughtabout going home to my village... leaving allmy friends here ... going home means notmeeting again.” (Child in Huke Ina)

The need to go on with their studies ifthey were to be able to find decent work wasalso a key concern for many of the childrenupon leaving care. One of the children inMuhammadiyah Lhoksemawe for exampleexplained,

“The problem, Miss, is that we only getschooled until half way,” said A14,expressing his fears. He then explainedwhat he meant, “Because we stop, beforewe have a degree, it’s not yet enough to getwork. The important thing is to graduate,Miss, I could become a part-time teacher,or a kindergarten teacher. The minimumsalary is Rp 500,000 per month (USD50).”


page

148

For the great majority of children unlikelyto be able to get a scholarship or to accessthe money to continue their studies, the endof placement was a bewildering time as washighlighted by children in Suci Hati in Aceh,

“How can I explain my feelings... If I thinkabout the future ... what I am going todo…I don’t know what to do. I want to goto college, but I can’t afford it.”

The case of two siblings of 17 and 18years of age who were about to graduate inNur Ilahi was also not atypical. The two girlshad lived in the institution for 9 years and hadnot once visited their families during the entiretime. Both were quite uncertain about theirfuture,

“... We’re going home soon, Miss ...that’s whywe want to get photos ...for memories”

“… (We go home)….after graduation, Miss... after we get our certificates”

“I want to go to college, Miss” (the youngestsister)

“Me, I don’t want to…Mama has told meto continue my studies…but I want to gohome… “But I don’t know after that ... Iwant to go home first. After that, maybe.”

(the older sister)

Other children clearly wanted to becomeself sufficient as soon as possible, either becausethey did not want to become a burden fortheir family or simply in order to be able togain some control over their lives which hadbeen heavily regulated by others to this point.As one child whose placement in PamardiUtomo was about to end explained,

“...I don’t want to go to school anymore. Iwant to get work as quickly as possible. Yousee, it’s the same thing, Miss, here you haveto do what people tell you, at home youhave to do what they tell you....”

Many children were keen to go back totheir families, particularly if the links with themhad been retained but they also recognised thatthe opportunities for them to find work in theirhome communities and to be able to become

independent were far and few between. As aresult, many of the children were clearlyanxious to find work as soon possible,

“After finishing school, they normallyreturn to their home village, and then goback to Lhokseumawe (city) to look forwork. They usually stay with or rentaccommodation with other childrenfrom the institution.”

Staff were also, in some cases, clearlyfeeling challenged by the process of endingchildren’s placements, as highlighted by a staffin Muhammadiyah Lhoksemawe,

“From the emotional perspective, somechildren don’t want to go home. Theywant to stay here with their friendswhile looking for work. But we can’tallow that as we have only limitedaccommodation and funding for food. So... we’re forced to say no.”

A number of the institutions provided a‘reprieve’ time for children to leave aftergraduation. Nur Ilahi in West Kalimantan forexample, allowed children to stay on for up toa month after graduation in recognition of the‘emotional impact’ that leaving carerepresented. In Suci Hati in Aceh, children whowere granted permission from the head of theinstitution could stay up to 3 months aftergraduating. Many of the institutions allowedchildren to stay at least until the presentationof their high school diploma, about a monthafter graduation, before they had to leave.

Some institutions organised a leavingceremony so children could say farewell andthe placement could be seen to be formallyending. As explained by the Manager ofHarapan,

“The children really look sad when it comestime to leave the institution. But they knewabout this from the time they entered. Also,the farewell ceremony we hold every year isa way of formally telling them that theirtime here is over. But after they leave, theycan come back from time to time to visit.For example, many of the children whohave left the institution come back atLebaran for a get-together.”


page

149

Parents generally did not seem to play akey role in terms of the termination of theplacement and few came to pick up theirchildren, particularly if the family lived somedistance from the institution. There were a fewexceptions though, as with Eben Haezer inWest Kalimantan, where parents were invitedto attend the farewell ceremony and to takethe child home afterwards. This was also thecase in Darul Aitam in NTB. In Huke Ina inMaluku, parents were asked to come and fetchtheir children or children would be actuallytaken home by a social officer under a speciallyfunded programme provided by the DistrictOffice of Social Welfare.

Most of the government run and some ofthe private institutions provided children atleast with some transport money so they couldgo home upon finishing senior high school. InHarapan in NTB for example children wereprovided with the fare to go home, whichsometimes could be considerable as childrencame from a long way away as in the case ofchildren from Sumbawa. In some institutionsthough, little provisions were made to ensurethe child would actually be able to go home.

Children were also usually provided witha letter terminating their placement and insome cases copies of certificates. In Harapanthe letter formally handing over the child backto the family had to be signed by both the headof the institution and the child’s family. In DarulAitam the process of handing over the childto his or her parents was also formalised,

“After graduation, we say good-bye to thechildren with a formal farewell ceremony inthe institution. We invite their parents orrelatives so as to signify a formal handover.After that, we consider them to beindependent. The farewell ceremony consistsof 1) thanksgiving prayers, and 2) thehandover of the children to their families.Normally those who are leaving give a giftto the institution. Last year we got a carpet.We’ve also in the past received a cooker,steamer, wall clock, also a hoe, and acrowbar.” (interview with staff)

On the other hand, as most institutionsdid not organise a handing over process, they

tended instead to send the child back homewith a simple letter confirming that the child’splacement with their institution had come toan end and as such so did the responsibility ofthe institution.

The only instances of children’s placementsbeing terminated early or reviewed related tochildren having broken what were deemed keyrules of the institution and being expelled as aresult, or children not adapting and being senthome or running away. As we saw above, mostinstitutions were clear at the offset both withthe child and his or her family that not abidingby the rules of the institutions or not doingwell at school would lead to the child beingsent back home. While few institutions hadformal procedures for ending a placement,most had developed quite strict guidelines interms of children’s behaviour and childrenfound repeatedly in violation of those ruleswere sent home and their placementsterminated. As explained by the manager ofAl Amin in West Kalimantan,

“This institution doesn’t have specificprocedures for the termination of services.Except in the case of a child whorepeatedly breaks the institution’s rules,despite warnings. Normally, I report this tothe Foundation’s executives, and theFoundation then talks to the child. If there isno improvement, we will normally send thechild back to his/her parents or guardian.We think that instead of things gettingworse, it’s better this way”.

As we will see in the section on the useof sanctions in Section X there were somestriking similarities across institutions aboutwhich misbehaviour was deemed to constitutesufficient ground for the child to be expelledand the process that followed. Generally thisentailed the giving of warnings for misbehaviourup to 3 times after which, if no improvementwas seen in the child, he or she would beexpelled and sent home. As the manager ofDarul Ulum Al-Munawwarah in Aceh explains,

“... violate the rules more than 3 times andthe child’s parents will normally besummoned. The choice is for the child to gohome or stay on in the institution.”


page

150

This was also how children understoodthe process, as for example with children inMuhammadiyah Lhoksemawe in Aceh,

“If a child is expelled, it’s normally forsmoking – it’ll be overlooked the first time,the second time you’ll get a warning, andthe third time your guardian will besummoned and you’ll be immediatelyexpelled.”

For most institutions, however, the mostsevere violation that could lead to theimmediate termination of a child’s placementrelated to a child or young person having anytype of romantic involvement, whether insideor outside of the institution. In some cases thisrule was explained in terms of ensuring thatsexual relationships would not develop in thecontext of the institution among children whoneeded to view one another as ‘brother andsister’. In UPRS for example, four children wereexpelled (2 boys and 2 girls) when it was foundthat they had developed personal relationships.In other cases this was simply deemed againstreligious rules and teaching and any youngperson breaking this rule would be considered‘irrediemable’. In Muhammadiyah Meulaboh therules were particularly strict for girls and theywere seriously restricted from leaving thecompound while boys on the other hand werefree to go out anytime and until late in theevenings. If the girl received a young male visitor,that person would be scrutinized tightly andimmediately suspected of being a potentialboyfriend. In one case, a girl actually wassanctioned when her male cousin visited herand was taken to be a ‘boyfriend’ by the staff.

In other institutions, the prohibition onhaving a boyfriend or girlfriend was oftenexplained by managers and staff in terms ofpreventing the negative impact this may haveon the young person’s education and the needto keep them disciplined and focused on theirstudies. In Pamardi Utomo in central Java forexample, the manager explained his approachto this,

“We know that children from elementaryschool to high school are constantlychanging. We monitor them one by one. Forexample, we give advice to the child, for

example ‘S, you are already at the agewhere relationships start. But, pleaseunderstand, you’re here to study what’s thepurpose...later once you have finishedschool, looking for work...you can have agirlfriend and then marry....so they get themessage.”

There was no doubt on the other handthat relationships with the other sex was akey issue for the older children and that thiswas felt by many of them to be a particularlyharsh rule. Teenagers in particular who are atthat key stage of sexualization where thedevelopment of personal and intimaterelationships is initiated were clearly tornbetween two world reality. On the one handthey were exposed at school and through themedia to the idea of romantic love while onthe other hand, the institution’s rules forcefullyrejected and penalized anything that may beseen to involve a relationship between the twosexes. Despite the rules of the institutions andthe very severe punishment that it incurred, itwas clear from the research that the olderchildren in the institutions, like childreneverywhere, saw romantic love as key to theirlives and having a boyfriend or girlfriend as asignificant part of their emotional development.Many were ready to take the risks involvedbut generally the strict rules on relationshipsmeant that most children concealed that partof their lives and went to great length to keepit secret. On the other hand, some of theinstitutions seem to go to equally great lengthsto uncover any potential evidence of suchrelationships by regular ‘razzia’ through thechildren’s dormitories and cupboards and evenreading through children’s letters and personalcommunications.

Children whose relationships were likelyto be found out tended to run away from theinstitution rather than being penalised as oneof the child in Nurul Ikhlas explained,

“H went home because they found out thatshe was in a relationship with a boy fromher village. He came here, so (the Manager)found out.”

This was also confirmed by the managerof the institution,


page

151

“Normally children run away because theycan’t adjust to the institution’s rules. Forexample, they stay out until late at night,get involved in relationships or like tobrawl.“

The line between a child being expelledand a child running away or asking to be senthome was seen to be a fine one in mostinstitutions. Children running away from theinstitution was found to be common in almostall of the institutions. Generally this wasunderstood to be as a result of a child not‘adapting’ to the rules and the situation in theinstitution. In many cases where a child washaving difficulty, the institutions would tend tosend the child home rather than risk having achild running away. This seemed to be less outof concern for the well being of the child andmore to do with the institution not wantingto ‘manage’ that situation or feeling that it is‘too much trouble’.

In Nurul Ilahi for example, staff told of achild who only stayed in the institution for 3months and then was sent home, “It wasprimarily because of the condition of the child, whowasn’t ready to be so far away from his parents.In cases like this, the institution prefers to sendthe child home rather than have him run away.”

The primary reason given for childrenasking to be sent home or running away wasthat they missed their families. In Suci Hati forexample,

“A child once ran away from here, wentback to his village as he didn’t like ithere and missed his parents.” (interviewwith child).

Similarly in Al Ikhlas,

“A child was once sent home, awithdrawn child who didn’t want to mixwith the others, didn’t want to adapteven when encouraged. He said hecouldn’t stand it here, he wanted hisfamily. So we called his parents and hewent home with them.” (interview withchild)

The case of Dewi in an institution in NTBalready referred to above (Dewi NTB TEXT

BOX) is another illustration. Generally childrenwho missed their families and wanted to returnto them tended to make use of a holiday to gohome and not come back rather than run awayas was the case in Patmos in NTB,

“When a child doesn’t want to stay anylonger in the institution, it can be difficult,usually they miss home. We rarely havechildren who run away… normally they’llask for permission to go home for theholidays and then won’t come back. Whenthis happens, we normally get a call fromhis or her mother. Sometimes the mothersalso ask children from the same village (topass on the info)”.

If children had families not too far awayfrom the institution, they would often try togo home more often than was allowed underthe rules and therefore would end up beingpunished as a result. The case of a 16 year oldboy in Hidayatullah in Maluku illustrates wellwhat happens in those cases,

“He had lived in the institution for 2years. As his family home was nearby, hefrequently went there to be with hisparents. Of course, this was not whatthe institution wanted, and his absenceswere treated as disciplinary violations.He was admonished and punished on anumber of occasions, but still persistedin returning home. As a result, he wasmoved to the Hidayatullah institution inMakasar (another province). He wasunable to adjust there and in the endleft and returned to his parents.”

Children also spoke of other children whohad asked to be sent home or ran away asthey missed their families and the conditionsback home. In Muhammadiyah Lhoksemawe,when asked whether there were children whocould not withstand life in the institutionanymore, the children answered,

“...Lots! wow, you can’t just say one or two.There are lots of them. There wouldn’t beenough paper to write down all theirnames, Miss,” said A9, who thenexplained why so many of the childrenwere unable to adjust to the institution,


page

152

“Usually if they go home, they don’t want tocome back. They can’t stand it here asthey’re unable to follow the rules. At homeyou can get spoiled, your parents really loveyou.”

Apart from wanting to be with theirfamilies, reasons given for children wanting tobe sent home or running away tended to relateto not being able to put up with all the strictrules of the institutions as well as theconditions of life in some. This was highlightedfor example by staff in MuhammadiyahLhoksemawe,

“There are children who can’t abide by therules here, like getting up early in themorning, performing prayers, studying, thechores, and so forth. These children usuallyrun away. But they are also some reallynaughty ones who frequently go out atnight. They know that the gate closes at 10p.m. But they still persist in coming home at11 p.m. They usually climb over the fence,but they will be punished. If we find out, weorder them to clean the yard, clean thedrains, the toilets. If they stay out late 3times, we summon there parents and sendthe child home.”

In Lohoraung, the government institutionin the island of Sangihe in North Sulawesi,children running away had apparently been abig problem under the previous management,as explained by a staff who worked there atthe time,

“... so, they weren’t getting enough food, andthe rules were really harsh. So, they (thechildren) ran away. At that time,circumstances here were very difficult.Before the children could eat after cominghome from school, they had to go outlooking for firewood for the cooking.”

As a result a majority of the children ranaway and it is then that the head of the Districtintervened to ‘save the institution’ and thepresent manager was asked to take over itsmanagement. It is particularly telling that it tookmost of the children running away for actionto be taken about the situation these childrenfaced in that government institution.

In some of the institutions where a childhad run away, the staff had contacted the familyof that child and tried to convince the boy orgirl to come back as for example in Darul ’UlumAl-Munnawwarah,

“... There are two children who left theinstitution. One moved with his uncle toBanda Aceh, so it was too far away to visit.The other used to always go home to hismother, so we had to pick him up threetimes. The third time, he didn’t want tocome back. Well, we didn’t force him andhis mother didn’t object to his remaining athome.” (interview with staff)

This was also the case in Nirmala,

It has happened, with children living nearby.When they feel fed up, it’s easy for them togo back to their parents. We try to coaxthem back, but if they’ve made up theirminds, we won’t force them.” (interview withstaff)

Disturbingly, in a number of institutionsthere seemed to be few if any attempts atfinding out what had happened to the childrenwho had run away or even in terms of checkingwhether the children were safe.Muhammadiyah Meulaboh gives an illustrationof what tended to be the response in theseinstitutions,

“The child ran away in the middle of thenight when everyone was sleeping, takingall his things with him, he left the institutionand he never came back.” The childrenrecalled further that the institution hadmade no efforts to find him. When thestaff were asked about this, theyresponded by saying that if there was achild from the same village as therunaway, the institution would just askhim to tell the runaway’s parents that hehad left the institution.”

In UPRS, a government institution in WestKalimantan, quite a number of children were‘lost’ in this a way,

“It appeared that quite a few childrenhad run away from the institution. Achild was considered by the institutionto have run away if he or she left


page

153

without giving notice. Staff 1 said that 5children had been classified as runaways,with the main reason being a prolongedabsence so that the institution took theview that they had left of their ownvolition. They would then be replaced byother children. One reason why childrenran away was that they were afraid ofbeing punished for some infraction ofthe rules.”

In Huke Ina, the government institution inBuru Island in Maluku, the research team foundonly 46 children out of the stated 50 at thetime of the assessment. Two had apparentlynot come back from their home visits. The factthat another 2 children were missing seemedto have gone unnoticed by the staff until theywere asked about it. It was found later thatthey had moved to stay with a friend as theydid not get on with their care family and thisseemed to have happened without those carershaving noticed or at least reportedthe matter to anyone. This did notseem altogether out the ordinaryeither as children explained what hadhappened in the case of the 2children who had not come back,

“The children recounted howtwo of their peers, N and M,had found it impossible toadjust to the institution. Thechildren did not know whythese children had found it sohard to adjust. In the end, thetwo children returned homefor Idul Adha (Religious celebration) andnever returned. The children said thatthe institution had taken no action tofind them. They also said that thechildren in question had not beenpresent when the children had lined upto be counted (which they do everydaybefore dining). The staff had then askedthe assembled children where the twomissing ones were, to which the childrenreplied, “They’ve not come back yet.” Nosubsequent efforts appear to have beenmade by the institution to find themissing children.”

Both children and staff pointed out thatthe first period of adaptation when a childenters the institution was what children foundthe hardest but after a while they simplyadapted or ran away. In SOS Desa Taruna forexample, the cases of children running awaytended to take place within that initial periodwhen the child found adjustment to their newcare situation hard. According to staff, if a childwas not found within the next few days, thestaff would look for him or her near the townmarket in Semarang.

“The reasoning is that after a few daysbeing away from the institution, the childwill be hungry. So the market is a likelyplace where he will look for food. If we findthe child, then we bring him back. The childwill not normally object”

While that period of adaptation couldoften be very difficult for children, it was clearthat they usually tried very hard to adapt,

particularly if this was seen as their only chanceof accessing education. In that regard, theresearch found that the prospect of beingexpelled for breaking some rule was oftenperceived by children as worse than any otherpunishment because they saw this as puttingan end to their chances of an education andwith that a better life. With that in mind, somechildren were willing to put up in some caseswith some truly difficult conditions includingsometimes violent and arbitrary behaviour bythe staff.

It is important to note in that context thatnone of the institutions carried out any typeof assessment of the capacity of a family totake back a child or young person even in the


page

154

context of ending a placement. While theinstitutions clearly relinquished responsibilityfor the child upon his or her graduation backto that child’s family, the termination of theplacement was in no way linked to a family’scapacity to care for that young person nor eventhe young person’s capacity to care for himselfor herself except in the case of Dr. J. Lukasand SOS Desa Taruna. It is quite striking thatchildcare institutions that identified as one oftheir main criteria for admission being anorphan or an otherwise ‘neglected’ child, didnot seem to be at all concerned about thatchild’s care or family situation upon terminatingthe placement. In only one instance, the caseof N a ten year old girl in Woro Wiloso, agovernment institution in Central Java, wasconcern expressed by a carer about what waslikely to happen to the child at the end of herplacement.,

“N, 10 years of age, grade 4 of elementaryschool, lived with her grandmother beforecoming to the institution. The whereaboutsof her parents are unknown. The problem is,if her grandmother passes away and Ngraduates from high school, where wouldshe go home to? Where would she live?What would happen to her and who wouldshe go back to?”

The reality, as we have seen, is that lack ofparental or family care was rarely the reasonfor the placement in the first place and it wasalmost never the focus of the services providedto the child. As a result, most institutions wereclear that children had families to go back toand the question of whether these would bewilling to care for them simply did not arise. Inaddition, the institutions seemed fairlyconfident that children leaving their care wouldbe able to take care of themselves. In any casethese institutions clearly felt that theirresponsibility towards that child had endedupon the end of their school education. Asexpressed by the head of Darul Aitam,

“Normally, the branches send children hereto become cadres. So, we train them up,and, God willing, when they leave here,they’re ready to be used. By ‘cadre’ we

mean that the child will become an imam, apreacher, yes, a cadre of the organization.”

Almost none of the institutions assessedhad a monitoring system in place regarding thesituation of children and young people whohad left their care. A few of the Governmentinstitutions had occasional follow up visits iffunding was available but this did not seem tobe either regular or reaching all children whohad left care.

UPRS in Kalimantan for example ,combined its monitoring of children who hadleft its institution with its once a year ‘outreach’process to recruit new children. Huke Ina inMaluku had funding to carry out a one off visitto children who had left care after a six monthsperiod. The process seemed to be mainlyaimed at finding out what had happened tothem but did not seem to be linked to anytype of support services or interventionsshould the young person actually need theirhelp. As the head of that institution explained,

“It always saddens me to see our childrengo home to become farm laborers or whenthey fail to find a job.”

In some cases, where an institution had,through its parent organisation, access to a localnetwork such as institutions run underMuhammadiyah for example, news of thechildren who had left the institution sometimesreached them through these networks. InMuhammadiyah Lhoksemawe for example,

“To help us monitor things, we ask thealumni from the institution who are nowliving in the community, usually in the samevillage or district, to tell us by telephone ortext message how the children are gettingon.” (interview with the manager)

Some of the other faith based institutionsalso made use of their religious networks toget some news from the children who had lefttheir care, as was the case with Eben Haezer,

“There’s no special mechanism formonitoring the children who leave theinstitution. However, monitoring isconducted informally, particularly when theinstitution managers visit churches in thevillages. This is because the children


page

155

normally were accepted by the institution atthe recommendation of their local church.”(interview with the manager)

Generally though, the onus seemed to beleft to the children who had left care to be intouch with the institution. Only in the caseswhere they had done so was the institutionable to know what had happened to them andwhat challenges they had faced. It is likelythough that those individuals that keep in touchare precisely those that have succeeded tomake a life for themselves. In any case, no aftercare services were provided though in someinstances as with SOS Desa Taruna,relationships with carers were still possible.Visits by alumni were usually welcomed by theinstitutions, particularly when these could belinked to identifying new recruits or supportthe institution in some other way.

Child protection policy and practice

Only one out of the 36 childcareinstitutions assessed had a formal childprotection policy in place or some sort ofsystem to enable child protection issues facedby children in care to be known or respondedto.

A child protection policy together with asystem to implement it is crucial to ensurethat institutions are able to identify, addressand support any child in its care that may befacing harm such as abuse, neglect andexploitation. It enables the institution to sendthe clear message that violence against childrenwill not be tolerated and that the institution isa safe environment for the child. In addition itsupports children and staff to address issuesof violence both within the context of theinstitution but also the impact of violencewhich children may have been exposed to priorto entering the institution or are experiencingoutside of it including at home and at school.

Siti was born 16 years ago on 26 June. Herspine was broken when she was a child and thishas interfered with her growth. As a result, Sitiis now only about 1 meter in height and she hasa protruding spine and a deformed body.

Siti was born to an unfortunate family. Herfather was a heavy drinker and gambler, andwould frequently beat Siti’s mother when drunk.When Siti was not yet a month old, her fatherlifted her up after fighting with her mother andthrew her against a rambutan tree.

It is likely to be this that broke Siti’s spine.The problem was exacerbated by the fact thatshe never received any medical treatment.

One month after Siti was thrown againstthe tree, her mother died following a beating atthe hands of her father, who then fled and whose

whereabouts are still unknown. Siti was left allalone, disabled and disfigured. After her fatherran away, Siti was taken in by a neighboringfarming family, who had no children of their own.They then adopted Siti as their own child. Afterthat, Siti lived with her adoptive parents, and wasraised and educated as their own child.

However, Siti’s suffering was not at an end.When she was in grade 5 of elementary school,Siti’s adoptive mother died following an illness.Siti’s adoptive father then remarried with awidow who already had four children of her own.So, Siti now had four siblings. After this, Siti foundherself gradually being edged out of the family.Her adoptive father’s new wife focused all of herattention on her own children and showed littleconcern for Siti. After graduating fromelementary school, Siti received no more

LIFE STORY:

SITI, Girl 16 years old, West Kalimantan


page

156

schooling for two years, and in the end wasforced to go out into the fields to work, despiteher physical impairment and her sadness at beingrejected by her adoptive parents.

Despite everything, Siti still dreamed ofbeing able to continue her education. Thesehopes were realized after Siti’s elder sister, wholived in the childcare institution, invited Siti tocome to Singkawang and seek a place in theinstitution.

However, there were still a number ofproblems that had to be overcome by Siti. Whenshe arrived at the childcare institution, she wasenrolled in grade 1 of junior high school, whenin reality at her age she should have been in grade3.

Siti also faced money problems. During thecourse of one year, she was only sent a total ofRp 75,000 (USD 7.5) by her adoptive father. Thiswas because he himself was not well-off. Whilethe childcare institution supplied food and paidfor Siti’s education, she still needed money forpersonal necessities such as soap, shampoo andtoothpaste. During menstruation, Siti was forcedto use a piece of folded cloth as a kind of diaperas she was unable to afford sanitary napkins. Shewould then wash this cloth time and again.

In order to earn money to purchasepersonal necessities, Siti did what she could,including washing clothes for the pesantren(Islamic boarding school) students, together withher friend, R. For this she received Rp 20,000(USD 2) per month. She also had to performchores and duties in the childcare institution,despite her physical impairment. Among theduties that Siti was required to perform werepruning and cutting the trees, helping with the

cooking, and cleaning the home of the head ofthe pesantren.

Siti was also made the subject of jibes andteasing by the other children in the institution,and frequently called “Ateng” (a comic figure)because of her short stature. This obviouslycompounded Siti’s lack of self-confidence. As aresult of her disability and different appearance,Siti tends to burst out crying when asked abouther hopes and expectations for the future.Pessimistically, she says that she does not havethe courage to hope.

One of the things that has encouraged Sitito stay on in the childcare institution is the factthat she also has a lot of friends who care abouther there. Their care is manifested by their givingof clothes and school requisites to her. Siti neverfeels she is treated differently by them. In fact,she feels happier living in the childcare institutionthan in her own home, where she was deniedattention and affection. In the childcareinstitution, she has the love and affection of herfriends, and it is this that encourages Siti topersevere.

To this day, Siti harbours a desire to revengeherself on the father that she doesn’t remember,but who left her deformed for the rest of herlife.

“If I hadn’t been thrown like that by myfather, I wouldn’t be deformed ... and mumwouldn’t have died.”

The most recent news that Siti has heardabout her father is that he has remarried andhas children with his new wife. However, he hasnever made any effort to find Siti. To this day, Sitiis still filled with hatred and a desire for revenge.

SOS Desa Taruna in Central Java was the onlyinstitution that had a clear statement that casesof violence against children should beresponded to by its staff and managers althoughthat statement, found in the Manual of itsparent organisation, did not seem to beaccompanied by a clear system or procedureto respond to such cases.

Across the majority of institutions thereseemed to be little awareness of the risks facedby children in relation to physical, sexual or

psychological violence or of the potentialimpact such violence may have on children andtheir development. What was particularlysurprising for institutions whose stated focuswas on ‘neglected children’ was that almostnone of the institutions seemed to recognisethat as a result of that neglect children mayhave particular care and support needs. Noattempt was made on the part of theinstitutions to identify at admission time anypossible history of violence or neglect in thechild’s life that may require a different approach


page

157

“A.4 was born on 15 April 1993, the fifthchild of the family. A.4’s mother diedwhen he was one year old. He was thenlooked after by his grandmother inPontianak. At that time, his father wasalso living in Pontianak and hadremarried without informing thechildren, including A.4. “Dad married insecret.” A.4 and his younger brotherwere then taken by their father to livewith their stepmother.

A.4 was in grade 1 of elementaryschool at the time. However, after a fewmonths living with his father andstepmother, he found he could nolonger stand it. “My stepmother was reallyevil. When we came home tired fromschool, she would order us to work, to cookfor the whole household, wash the dishesand clean the house. We would be reallytired. But if we didn’t do what she told us,she would beat us with a rattan cane. Itwas really sore, Miss. She beat us all thetime when we didn’t do what she told us.But she was always nice to us when dadwas around. So dad didn’t know that shebeat us.

In the end, I couldn’t stand it any more andwent to live with grandma again. Then whenI was going into grade 2 of elementaryschool, grandma brought me here, to thePepabri institution. Dad didn’t know at thetime, but in the end he found out. Mybrother is still living with dad and is stillbeing beaten. They’ve also stopped sendinghim to school.”

In Al Hidayah, the case of an 8 year placedin the institution as a result of abuse by herstep father was also identified,

“S (8 years of age) was frequentlysubjected to violence by her stepfather.He frequently beat her, on one occasionwith a belt buckle so as to draw blood.Her stepfather was frequently drunk onthe local alcohol, and would also hit S’smother when she tried to hide thealcohol in the dirty washing. When herfather was enraged, S would run away soas to avoid being beaten. As the child

or particular support. As we saw earlier, witha strong focus on access to education andvirtually no individual care being provided, thegreat majority of the institutions did notrecognise the need to assess a child’s ownparticular circumstances or history as part ofthe selection or admission process.

Despite this, in some cases children’sexperiences of violence at the hands of theirfamilies or in the context of their communitieswere identified, often after placement andusually in the context of a child not ‘adapting’properly. Specific support or services weregenerally not provided though, instead it wasexpected that with time and with the supportof other children, those children would‘recover’. As we have seen, a few institutionsspecifically recruited children who had beenvictims of conflict as was the case with CalebHouse in Maluku, PEPABRI in West Kalimantanand Darul ’Ulum Al-Munnawwarah in Aceh orvictims of a disaster like the ‘tsunami’ in Acehas in the case of Suci Hati, MuhammadiyahMeulaboh and Darul Ulum. Surprisingly amongthose institutions, only Caleb House recognisedthe need to provide particular support to thesechildren and that tended to focus on ‘traumacounselling’. Huke Ina, the governmentinstitution in Buru Island which also has in itscare a number of children clearly affected bythe conflict including children who had beendirectly involved, had no support system of anykind in place for these children. Instead childrenrelied on each other for support.

It was clear from the research that familyand inter-communal violence had been acontributing factor in a number of theplacements and that it had impactedconsiderably on the lives of many children incare. Family violence, particularly in the contextof reconstructed families or step families aftera divorce had led to children being placed incare or children running away. Siti’s story aboveprovides a striking illustration of the legacy ofviolence on a child’s life and how it resulted ina placement in care.

The case of another child A4, in PEPABRIalso shows the clear links between familyviolence and placement in care,


page

158

was relating her story, she pointed toscars on her forehead.”

Similarly 3 of the children placed in CalebHouse had been placed there as a result offamily violence including two twins who wereabused by their father, after their mother diedin the conflict in Maluku. The father used toburn cigarette butts on their cheeks and themarks can still be clearly seen on their faces.The third child was hit so badly and repeatedlyby his mother that his back was badly hurt andis damaged as a result causing the child seriousdifficulty with walking.

Across the institutions, there seemed tobe much less awareness of the potential impactof a history of inter-personal violence onchildren than of the potential impact of conflict.Even in Caleb House the focus was very muchon children who had ‘witnessed’ their familieskilled in the conflict or had been directlyaffected rather than children who had beenvictims of violence by family members, “There

are no staff in the institution that have receivedtraining on how to recognize and respond tosigns of violence.”

It was clear from the research, however,that many of the children who had been putinto institutional care were bringing with themoften painful histories of neglect and abuse atthe hands of their families or of the loss anddestruction of their families a result of conflictor disaster. In some cases, children had beenin the institution when the conflict had brokenout as with Nurul Ikhlas in Ambon or whenthe tsunami had hit as in the case of Suci Hation the west coast of Aceh. The extent to whichtheir world had been affected by these eventscame through powerfully when speaking tothese children as was the fact that in manycases they had only been able to rely on eachother to recover.

It is obvious from the stories children tellthat their experiences in the context of family

MALUKU: Hasanah’s story(Girl, 20 years old)

A. Child’s Particulars

Name: Hasanah

Place and date of birth: Luhu, 6 April 1987

Parental status: Mother alive and father dead

Length of time in the institution: 15 years

Religion: Islam

B. Reason for entering the institution

In 1992, Hasanah’s father passed away,leaving her mother with 6 children. As life inSeram was difficult, in the end Hasanah’smother decided to go with her six children toLahat to work. In Lahat, Hasanah’s motherfound work as a gardener at the home of arich person. She then met Mr. A (who is nowhead of the childcare institution), who wasseeking out children who were in need of care.

CHILDREN AFFECTED BY CONFLICTS

Hasanah’s mother was interested, and broughtall of her children to the institution. Since 1992,Hasanah, her five siblings and her mother haveall being living in the childcare institution. Atthat time, Hasanah was not yet attendingschool. However, the twins were in grade threeof elementary school, while her sister was ingrade 1.

After taking up residence in the childcareinstitution, the burden on Hasanah’s motherwas eased considerably. “I could relax. The childrenwere being looked after. At that time, Hasanahwas still not at school, while the twins were in grade3 of elementary school,” recalled Hasanah’smother, describing the time when Hasanah firstarrived at the childcare institution.

C. Life in the institution

1. Attacks by the “Obet” (nicknameused in Ambon for Christians)


page

159

“The ninth of September 1999 is known asthe bloody Idul Fitri,” explained Hasanah whencommencing her description of the civildisturbances she experienced in Ambon. Atthat time, she was 12 and still in grade 6 ofelementary school. She is still traumatizedabout the events that almost cost her andher friends their lives. “We had been invited toan event by the manager of Bank Bapindo. Wewere followed on the way home. We came undera hail of stones. The car kept going. At Karpan(Karang Panjang), the car almost crashed into agully. All of the kids were screaming. Mum wascrying.”

After “Bloody Idul Fitri”, the disturbancesbecame commonplace. “One night,” Hasanahcontinued, “the children were watching TV inmum’s house. Suddenly, we heard the electric sirengo off. That meant danger. The adults sent us outthe back door as the “obet” were already at theentrance gate.”

All of the children were sent to seek safetyin Lorong Putri village. In order to get to thatvillage, said Hasanah, the children had to crossa barbed-wire fence. They were then taken into people’s homes. All of the children werecrying as the adults were still at the childcareinstitution. “It was only the small children whowere sent to safety. The bigger children stayedbehind to help the adults fight the ‘Obet’.”

During the course of the disturbances, thechildcare institution was attacked 5 times. “Theworst attack came soon after the disturbancesstarted. The houses in front of childcare institutionwere burned. They also tried to burn the mosqueat the front. But luckily, all that was burned wasthe cloth curtain separating the men from thewomen.” With regard to the early stages of thedisturbances, Hasanah described her feelingsas follows: “At the start, I was terrified and feltlike I was going to die. We thought we were goingto be chased out by the ‘obet’.” After the initialdisturbances, the childcare institution was givenprotection. “They told me to go around theperimeter sprinkling (holy) water.”

Attack after attack occurred so that it wasimpossible to sleep comfortably at night. Thechildcare institution staff warned, “Be on your

guard, don’t go outside the home, don’t sleep toosoundly.” Gunfire was heard by the children mostnights. “If we heard shooting, we would all pray forthe “obet” to be killed,” recalled Hasanah.

One night they tried to bomb the childcareinstitution, but the bomb missed and hit aresident’s house instead. The house was burnedto the ground. The children ran away in panic.Hasanah related another story. One evening,just after Koranic study, Hasanah was leavingthe mosque. A bullet whistled past her face. “Iwas really lucky I wasn’t hit. It passed just in frontof my head”. The Ustad ordered us back intothe mosque.

Other heartbreaking events that Hasanahsays she will never forget:

- The time Ade died. Ade was a child ingrade 3 of elementary school who wasshot during an attack.

- D, who was in grade 6 of elementaryschool, joined the jihad. He was shot inthe temple, but they were still able to savehim in the hospital. According to Hasanah,“When the doctor wanted to take out thebullet, he tried to give D an injection first, buthe couldn’t get the needle to break the skin.The doctor said that the child must be usingsomething, yeah, an amulet. He had an amulettied around his waist. It was only after thiswas taken off that they were able to injecthim. A lot of blood came out.”

During the course of the disturbances,Hasanah witnessed many disturbing events,such as the following:

- “The obet have no feelings, they kick peoplein the head. I’ve often seen the obet kickingthe heads of ‘acan’ (nickname for Muslims).”

- A dog running around with a severed handin its mouth

- A dismembered corpse

- People fighting hand-to-hand with spearsand machetes

One time in Ramadan when things hadbeen quiet for a while following a ceasefire, ajoint breaking-of-the-fast meal had been


page

160

arranged by the ‘obet’. However, the eventended up in shooting. According to Hasanah,“During Ramadan, the ‘obet’ invited us to breakthe fast together. The venue was near the church.However, as we were leaving ‘obet’ territory, therewas an explosion and a fire started.”

2. Joining the Jihad

“I wanted to join the jihad, but mum wouldn’tlet me.” The girls were instead told to cook forthose on the jihad. Every night, Hasanah andthe other children would cook for themembers of the security forces and militiaguarding the childcare institution.

3. Trauma

With regard to Hasanah’s feelings duringthe disturbances, she had this to say: “I wasafraid, I hated the ‘obet’. I wanted to join the jihadagainst the ‘obet’, but I was afraid. And I was alsotold not to by mum.” Hasanah’s experiences ledher to hate the ‘obet’. As she says, “I still hatethem deep inside. Even if I’m smiling on the outside,inside I hate them with all my heart. I hate the‘obet’ from Ambon. ‘Obet’ from outside Ambon areOK.”

Even though almost 5 years have passed,the disturbances are still affecting Hasanah.Even today, she is still nervous. “To this day, I’mstill afraid when in ‘obet’ territory. I’m always onmy guard. If I meet an ‘obet’ on my own in thestreet, no problem. But I’m still not brave enoughto go into an ‘obet’ village on my own.”

Hasanah hopes that the peace will bepermanent and that she experiences no morehorrors. She also hopes to be able to shake offher fear of ‘obet’ and ‘obet’ villages.

ACEH: T’s story(Boy, 15 years old), Lhoksemawe,

T was the son of a GAM commander.* Notonly T’s father was a member of GAM, but sowas his brother. Both of them were shot deadby the TNI. T related his feelings andexperiences as the son of a GAM commander.

“Dad died on 5 August 2003. He had beensick in the forest. I brought rice and medicines to

him. But his hideout was given away by a spy. Dad’shideout was discovered by the TNI. Dad came outof the back door, and was shot dead. When hewas shot, I was on my way back home,” T recalled.He said that after his father had died, hisremains were not brought back to the village.“They would give us back the body if we collectedit. So, me and mama went to the TNI to get dad’sbody back.” T was heartbroken to see his dad’sclothes covered in blood. “When we arrived, theywouldn’t give us dad’s body back directly. Theyquestioned us first.” When asked what the TNIhad asked his mother, T replied: “I don’t knowwhat they asked mama. But they told me not tobe like my dad, not to be a rebel.” T said he didnot reply when the TNI said this to him. “Theykept telling me what to do. Then they gave us backdad’s body.” According to T, neither he nor hismother cried at the time. “Mum said that we’renot allowed to cry. We had to accept it as dad hadbeen wrong. Mum didn’t agree with dad being inGAM.”

T knew that both his dad and brotherwere GAM men as they were rarely at home.Rather, they frequently stayed in the forest. Theyalso carried guns and GAM flags. “Dad and mybrother had guns. They often went off into the forest.At home, dad would tell stories about the struggle.Dad had a big GAM flag, but didn’t fly it at thehouse. He hid it as he was afraid the TNI wouldfind out,” He then described his feelings as theson of a GAM commander, “It’s not nice. I wasafraid of losing dad.” Not only was he afraid oflosing his father, T was also upset as he rarelysaw him. “I hardly ever met dad as he was alwaysin the woods. He rarely saw his children.” As aresult, T would often go into the forest withhis mother to meet his father. It took between2 and 3 hours walking in order to reach hisfather’s hideout. If T’s father himself wanted tosee his wife and children, he would order oneof his men to bring them by motorcycle.

One time T and his mother were collectedby his father’s men. They were brought as faras the forest by motorcycle, and had to walkfrom there on, with the motorbike being leftat the nearest village. T was exhausted andstarted to cry. He had to be carried by his


page

161

mother. They eventually met his father, and Tstayed for a couple of days. “I wasn’t afraid inthe forest. I liked playing with dad’s radio, annoyingthe TNI”, “I wanted to stay with dad in the forest,but mum said I couldn’t as I had to go to school.”T had a number of reasons for wanting to staywith his father in the forest. “Dad liked tellingstories about the struggle. He also liked reading abook called “Sumatra Siapa Punya” (Who OwnsSumatra). He showed it to me and told me what itwas about. I liked listening to dad’s stories. Thebook was all about the adventures of the Cut (Afamous heroine in Aceh). According to the book,GAM is right as so much of Aceh’s wealth hasbeen taken to the centre, and not shared with theAcehnese people, so that they have been forced torebel.”

Before T’s father was shot by TNI hisbrother had also been shot by TNI “My brotherwas shot at the back of the house on his motorbike.He was on his way home to warn dad that theTNI were in the village. But before he reachedhome he was shot.” T heard the shooting thatresulted in the death of his brother. “My brotherwas shot 6 times – in the legs, abdomen, head –although he was shot, there was no blood,” recalledT.

As T’s family were pro-GAM, the TNI werefrequently posted at his house. T wasn’t afraidwhen the TNI soldiers were in the house. Infact, he admired them, with their uniforms andweapons. “I really admired them, they were great,their uniforms were cool, so were their guns.” Hecontinued, “Dad’s gun was different from the TNIguns.” According to T, neither his mother, himselfnor his siblings were disturbed by the presenceof the soldiers. “Mum said it was no problem.The soldier’s often asked mum about dad, but mumwould say she didn’t know anything. Mum wasoften threatened, shouted at, me too. But I hadbeen told by mum to say that I knew nothing ifasked by the TNI.” While T never saw his motherbeing assaulted or physically abused by the TNI,he did see her frequently being questionedaggressively. However, his mother neverbecame angry.

The experience that made the mostimpression on T was when he witnessed his

elder sister being taken away to the TNI postin a big TNI truck. “She was crying so hard shecouldn’t answer their questions. So the soldiersslapped her around the face, blindfolded her andbrought her in a TNI truck to the Army post. Mysister had a telephone in her house, so they thoughtshe was a spy.”

When T was asked how he felt about theTNI, he replied: “No problem. Mum says that Ishouldn’t seek revenge as dad was in the wrong. Ifdad hadn’t joined GAM, then he wouldn’t havebeen hunted down by the TNI.”

T heard shooting and news of people’sdeaths almost every day. He was no longerfrightened by the sound of gunfire. “No, it’s noproblem, as long as you don’t go outside the house.If there’s fighting going on, you can’t go to school.So school was often interrupted.” Because of this,T’s mother decided to send him to thechildcare institution in Lhoksemawe and Tconsented. So he and his elder sibling nowlive in the institution.

According to one of the institution’s staff,T comes from a relatively well-off family. Theyown oil-palm and durian plantations, and areengaged in trade. The childcare worker saidshe had visited their house. “T’s mother broughthim here so that his schooling would not bedisrupted. As there was frequently fighting in theirvillage, their school was often closed.” Thisaccorded with what T had to say, “Mama saysthat she brought me here so that my schoolingwould not be disrupted. She often visits me here.And whenever we have holidays, I go home to visitmama.”

ACEH: N (Girl, 16 years old) and S (Boy,17 years old), Meulaboh.

Two children who hailed from villageslocated within military operations zones. Theyrelated their experiences of violence, and howthey had witnessed their fathers being killed, “Isecretly watched as dad was killed by the TNI.”This was related by N with a sad expression,but fiery eyes. She then told how TNI troopscame to her village and rounded up all the


page

162

villagers in the square. Suddenly, the soldiersopened fire, mowing down the men, whowere lined up in ranks, including her father.N says that she no longer harbours a desirefor revenge as she believes that human beingsdo not have the right to exact revenge –rather it is God who will punish evildoers. Nadmits that she only vaguely remembers theincident as it happened back when she wasin grade 5 of elementary school.Nevertheless, she still feels nervous whenshe undertakes the long journey to her homevillage.

One boy, S, related how his father hadbeen killed during the massacre at thepesantren (Islamic boarding school) led byTengku B (religious leader). The Tengku,according to the child, was the most famousimam in Nagan Raya, the place where thechild came from. Many people, both fromwithin and from outside Aceh, came to visitthe imam’s pesantren in order to seek hisadvice and guidance. The boy related howintelligence officers suddenly arrived at thepesantren, which they believed was a GAMbase. He said that they tried as hard as hardas they could to get close to the imam, andremained at the pesantren for two weeks.They even offered to lend him their vehicle.One week after they had left, the intelligenceofficers returned to the pesantren,accompanied by a squad of TNI soldiers.

“The atmosphere was very tense. Our areawas surrounded by TNI troops. They were alsopatrolling with aircraft. The TNI soldiers thenrounded up all the people from the village –men, women, the old, the young, and put them inthe pesantren, on the second floor. After everyonehad been rounded up, a TNI soldier withcamouflage stripes on his face ordered TengkuB to come out. However, all the children urgedhim not to. Despite this, the imam emerged. Hewas then lined up with all of the other men inthe pesantren yard. Without any order beinggiven, the soldiers opened fire and shot all of themen, witnessed by the women children from thesecond floor of the pesantren. S related his story

slowly and deliberately, with his eyes staringinto the distance.

At the time of the pesantren massacre, Swas in grade 5 of elementary school. Hebelieved that he too would be killed. However,the children and the women were then broughtto a mosque located beside the scene of themassacre. S did not get an opportunity to seehis father’s remains as they were immediatelydumped in a mass grave. After the death of S’sfather, his mother decided to remarry. S saidthat he didn’t want to interfere with thehappiness of his mother, and that his stepfatherrefused to pay for his schooling. As a result, heresolved to move away from home and enterthe childcare institution in Nagan Raya. He wasin grade 1 of junior high school. S said that lifein that childcare institution had been far fromquiet as it was located on the borderlinebetween TNI and GAM territory, so thatshooting was often to be heard. In fact,exchanges of fire took place just about everyday. On one occasion, the children had beencaught in the fighting and kicked by MobileBrigade (Brimob) troopers. S couldn’t take itany more and in the end went to his cousin’shouse in Meulaboh and enrolled in theMuhammadiyah junior high school. He only hadhis bus fare in his pocket at the time. Whenattending the Muhammadiyah junior highschool, S had met other children from thechildcare institution, who then encouraged himto seek a place there. Armed with nothingmore than determination, he made his way tothe institution. After three attempts to gain aplace, he was finally contacted by the head ofthe institution in Meulaboh and offered a place.He entered the institution as he was about tostart grade 2 of junior high school (2002).

At one stage, S had considered joiningGAM so as to free Aceh from Indonesia.Besides seeing the TNI as evil on account ofthe fact that the Army had killed his father, healso believed that Aceh had never benefitedfrom its position as a part of Indonesia. In fact,in S’ view, Aceh had suffered as its resourceshad been siphoned off. Furthermore, many


page

163

Acehnese had been massacred, especiallyduring the New Order era.

In the end, S had decided not to join GAM,although his elder brother and cousin had longbeen members. His mother advised him to getan education. S decided that the best way toget revenge would not be to join GAM, butrather to get an education and becomesuccessful so that he could be an influence for

change in the future. Despite his aspirations, Sis going to be faced with a major obstacle –namely, the lack of money to pay for universityafter finishing high school. As a result, he isnow at a loss to know what he should do soas to ensure his future.

*) GAM (Gerakan Aceh Merdeka) is theacronym for an armed group that fought for

independence for Aceh from Indonesia.

SUCI HATI, Meulaboh (West Aceh)

All of the children who had been in thischildcare institution in 2004 were affected bythe tsunami. The children had been carryingout their normal chores, cleaning the childcareinstitution, when the tsunami struck on aSunday morning. The disaster claimed the livesof the Ustadz’ three children, who also lived inthe childcare institution complex.

The children related how theyimmediately ran to the mosque for safety. Thiswas later used as a temporary shelter. Thechildren were then moved to tents in an IDPcamp while awaiting the rebuilding of thechildcare institution, which had been levelledto the ground by the tsunami.

While they were in the IDP camp, the boysand the girls occupied separate tents.

Not all the childcare institution staff livedin the tents with the children. The girls wereaccompanied by three lady cooks, while theboys were accompanied by only one malemember of staff.

According to the children, the ustadz andthe head of the childcare institution didn’t livein the IDP camp as both had rented housesclose to the location.

The children said that they lived their livesin the camp without any special supervisionfrom the childcare institution staff. They atewith the other IDPs at the public kitchen.

Similarly with study, school and prayers, thechildren looked after themselves without anyspecial attention from the staff. The childrencomplained about the discomfort theyexperienced in the tents, “not nice ... hot ... leakyroof ”.

The children also told of their grief atlosing friends and relatives to the tsunami. Onechild told how she had simultaneously lost hermother, grandmother, elder sibling and youngersibling, “…They were in Samatiga ... it’s 15 kmfrom here ...now it takes about an hour just to getthere.... I was here (in the institution) at the time ...my mum died ... I was told by my stepfather ...‘there’s no point in asking for your mum any more’.Now there’s only four of us ... two older siblings ...and one younger sibling.” Her mother’s youngersister survived and took on the role of hermother. “I was closest to mum’s sister. She wasbadly injured by the tsunami, but she’s recovereda bit since, but she’s still got a limp. Her husbandwas killed. Her children were killed also.”

Besides family members, the children alsolost good friends to the tsunami, “X ... our friend... because it happened on Sunday, which was aholiday ... she had gone home ... we had met earlieron Friday... she said she was tired. …Someone whocame back after the tsunami told the cook whathappened… Apparently X was on her way to themosque….that’s when it happened.” The childrenalso recounted about their neighbourhoodsbeing destroyed, and bodies not being found

ACEH: CHILDREN AFFECTED BY THE TSUNAMI


page

164

so that they had been unable to bid farewellto their friends for the last time: “The roadswere all gone ... it was impossible to go ... her bodywas never found ... everyone ... friends ... grandma... mama ... good friends ... especially school friends... sad ...”.

The children expressed their sadness atlosing their close friends. It was then that theyrevealed their innermost feelings: “It’s not like itused to be ... it’s different now ... there’s no one likeher ... her nature ... her response when we had aheart-to-heart ... and other things ... if there was aproblem ... because she was strong ... a bit of atomboy ... she could respond to things like problemsat school….”

The conditions in the wake of the tsunamiproduced various psychological impacts on thechildren, including a deep feeling of sadness anddejection that the children were finding hardto put into words, “I cry if anything happens.Here, for example, if someone is upset, like if they’retired after school ... if someone gets scolded whenthey’ve done nothing wrong ... why before it wasn’tlike this ... Ok, it happened, but not so often ... sad... upsetting.”

The psychological effects of the tsunamiwere most profoundly felt by the children inthe first year after the disaster. Among theproblems experienced by the children weredifficulties sleeping and nightmares. “Basically, ifthere was a tremor, I’d always remember ... weused to talk about the tremors ... they happenedevery week ... if there was a tremor, we’d all godown ... dreaming, dreaming that another tsunamiwas coming ... after the tsunami I couldn’t sleep ...for more than a year ... when we were in the open... raining ... thunder and lightening ... I was scared... nothing was certain ... nowhere to live ...”

The situation in the wake of the tsunamialso had an impact on the children’sachievements at school. “My performance atschool got worse ... I remember ... after the tsunamihit ... I had no interest in studying ... there were nobooks ... I didn’t want to go to school ... I had nouniform ... I had no shoes.”

The children said that it took them a fullyear to recover from the trauma inflicted on

them by the tsunami. The children employedvarious means of lightening their spirits,

“Sometimes it comes back ... I try to get overit ... almost a year now ... I normally go for walks ...nowhere in particular ... I usually go for bus rides ...I get on and off again and again ... if I’m at homesitting on my own ... at first, it’s OK ... but then Istart remembering and crying.”

The children also described the role theirpeers played in relieving their burden: “justpraying ... sometimes sad, remembering ... if I amdown, I tell a friend ... she likes to tease me aboutit .... she doesn’t like to see people crying ... shegets upset too if she sees people crying ... ‘oh dear,why are you crying ... like that ... it’s up to God ... it’sOK ... you won’t be sad for long ... you’ll be OKtomorrow ... go to sleep ... tomorrow you’ll haveforgotten.”

The fact that they were living togetheralso helped the children get over the trauma,“I’ve forgotten about it a bit, now ... it’s not like itwas before ... because I’m here with my friends ...not like in the village ... it took a while ... but becausewe’re all together living in the tent ... so we couldforget quickly”. (Interview with 3 roommates,whose family members and friends fell victimto the tsunami)

DARUL ULUM, Lhoksemawe, Anto’sstory (15 years old boy)

Anto, who is from Calang Meulaboh, is theonly child in the institution that comes fromoutside Lhoksemawe. He originally came to theDarul Ulum as his neighbour knew the ustadthere. Anto is happy that he is now in DarulUlum as it will allow him to get an educationand study as a santri (Koranic student).However, there is one problem preying onAnto’s mind – the amount of assistance hereceives is becoming smaller. “I’m getting lessand less assistance. They promised me I’d be sentto high school, but I’m getting no assistance now. Ijust get a bed and food. I’m also disappointed asall my friends are visited by their parents and givenmoney, but nobody gives me money, except forgrandma when she visits now and again. But she’sgetting on in years. It’s a pity for her.”


page

165

Anto then recalled his traumaticexperiences during the tsunami,

“It was Sunday and I had just woken up.Mama was opening the shop and dad was out.There was me, mama, and my younger sibling. Ifelt the earthquake, the closets fell over, the shelvescollapsed. I heard a rumbling noise. Everyoneshouted that the sea was retreating. There werelots of fish left high and dry. So everyone ran outto gather up the fish. I didn’t go. There was a bigrumbling noise again, getting louder. Everyone ranto the mosque, the sea rose. The wave wasenormous. God help us. Everyone was running tothe mosque and praying. I could only think that itwas the end of the world. I remembered mum.She was behind me. She told me to run, dad wasalso running. Thank God, the massive wave didn’tcrest. If it had crested, we would all have beendead. We kept running up into the hills.”

Anto then recalled his experiences in thehills,

“While we were taking refuge in the forest, Islept on under a tree. There was no tent. We atewhat we could get, leaves, coconut milk... I felt soweak. It was only after two weeks that a helicopterdripped food – that was the first time we ate realfood. As well as the helicopter, Marines also arrivedto help us. In the end, we got plenty of help. Lot’sof Westerners arrived. We ate an ox that one ofthe Marine’s shot. The ox had ran up here fromthe village.”

Anto lived in the forest for three weeks.He was then collected by his grandmother.Grandmother was in the hills trying to findout which of her children and grandchildrenhad survived. It was then that she met up withAnto. After that, he lived with his grandmother,but as her financial circumstances were difficult,he was eventually sent to the childcareinstitution.

Leila’s story (Girl, 16 years old)

Leila’s house was only 20 meters from thebeach, so that when the tsunami struck, therewas nothing that her family could do to avoidit. Leila was sobbing loudly as she related herstory to the assessor – occasionally they would

hug. After she managed to calm down, shewould continue her story of how she hadstruggled to save herself, her mother and hersiblings from the tsunami.

“When the tsunami struck, I was tidying upthe yard. Mum, my brothers and sisters, and mynephew/niece(s) were in the house. Dad had goneto the market. The water came in higher than yourhead ... I ran to the road. Then the second wavecame, even bigger than the first. We held hands –mum held my right hand, while my sibling held myright hand. She was swept away by the water ...they found her dead body that afternoon.”

Leila stopped talking, and started sobbinguncontrollably. She and the assessor huggedeach other. The assessor then decided tochange the topic by questioning L and Z, Leila’sbest friends, who were also present. As theassessor chatted with them, Leila began to calmdown and rejoined the conversation.

“I held mum’s hand and wouldn’t let go. Therewas lots of timber, debris, the water was swirlingaround. But I kept on holding mum’s hand andpraying. I knew mum wasn’t strong. I wasn’t strongeither. I couldn’t breath. My hair was full of debris.There was a big piece of wood, I grabbed it formum’s head. Mum was already weak.”

Leila kept praying that God would saveher mother, but she was aware that her motherwas already weak. So, when she saw the pieceof wood, she placed her mother’s head on it.She then stayed by her and helped her facedeath:

“I still remember mum dying on that piece ofwood. Her body was still in the water. I held on toit with my left hand, and hugged her and caressedher head with my right hand, while praying all thetime. I knew she was dying – her breathing wasstrained. She drew three big breaths and then shedied.”

Leila saying that even as her mother wasdrawing her last breaths, Leila tried to cheerher up by saying, “Mum, would you like to hearmy story?” Leila related this while hugging theassessor.

“... I was really glad that I was there whenmum died. I held tightly onto her body, and brought


page

166

it to the mosque. There was water up to here(pointing to her chin) in the Mosque. I placed mum’sbody on the pulpit. I was inside the mosque on myown as everyone else had climbed up onto theroof.”

That afternoon, as the water began torecede, people started to arrive at the mosqueand relay news on who had died and who hadsurvived. Among those who had died wereLeila’s father and her 4 nieces and nephews,while another niece and one of her siblingswere missing. Their bodies have never beenfound. All of Leila’s family members who diedin the tsunami were buried in the village ofher brother’s wife as this was removed fromthe coast and had not been affected by thetsunami.

After that, Leila lived with her brother inhis wife’s village. She had stayed for a while inthe IDP camp at Lhok Sukun, but she didn’tlike it as there was nothing to do there exceptstudy the Koran, play and sleep. There had beenpeople to cheer her up there, but “I wasn’tinterested. I would just sit on my own. When I lostmy mum, I lost everything. I didn’t like mixing withpeople. If I heard people having a good time, Iwould get angry and go off on my own.”

Since that time, Leila has been withdrawn,and quick to get angry. This was stated by herfriends, “Leila’s become very touchy ... she flies off

the handle very quickly. But she’s getting betternow.” Leila herself agreed with this assessment,“When people ask me about the tsunami, I neveranswer. I just cry.” Leila is still traumatized bythe tsunami, “I still remember it, even now. Ifsomeone talks about the tsunami, I don’t want tohear. I get away as quick as I can. I can’t listen. Itjust makes me cry.”

So Leila summed up the trauma sheexperienced. She added, “If there is a happy orjoyful atmosphere, I can’t stand it. I can’t controlmy emotions. I still remember it all. So I just go tomy room, crying and praying.” She still is loath toreturn to her home village as this brings backtoo many memories of the tsunami, “I don’twant to go home as I always remember whathappened.” She also says, “If someone is talkingabout a disaster, like yesterday there were floodsin Jakarta, or there was an earthquake somewhere,I don’t want to hear. My body starts shaking, mychest hurts. When this happens, I go straight tomy room, just crying and praying.”

Following the tsunami, Leila has frequentlyexperienced pain and has been x-rayed anumber of times. “I still have a pain in the chest,like I’m being bitten by ants,” she explained.

Leila’s friends are fully aware of how muchshe suffered, and so do their best to keep heroccupied and amused.”

violence, conflict or disaster are still very mucha part of their lives and in many cases theyhave had to develop their own ways of coping.Beyond providing some ‘trauma counselling’and moral and spiritual guidance to ensurechildren were not carrying feeling of revengeor hatred, institutions caring for children whohad been affected by violence or tragic eventshad not put in place any other strategy oridentified any particular need to supportchildren’s recovery or to overcome thechallenge of reintegrating themselves withinfamilies and communities that were badlyaffected.

In the few cases where ‘counselling’ hadbeen provided, it seemed very ad hoc andusually the result of the involvement of nationaland international organisations in the aftermathof that crisis rather than as a result of identifiedneeds or a planned response provided by theinstitutions to individual children in their care.Children also did not always find ‘traumacounselling’ helpful as was explained by a childin Suci Hati about the ‘counselling’ providedto them through their school,

“There has been counselling ... from ourschool ...


page

167

Yesterday in school ... we were told to tellwhat happened during the tsunami ... ‘whathappened’…’where did we run to...’.Actually, the teacher from school ... heworked in the Office of Education ... anexpert.

(It was)…in front of the whole class. Someof them laughed….

We were told to act out what happened,running, crying out for help. One child said,‘Sir, there’s no point doing this again ... it willonly increase the trauma.’

The teacher said not to worry, make itfunny…

There doesn’t seem to be any point... Goinghome, it seemed that I started toremember it all again.”

In a similar vein, institutions which spokeof supporting children to overcome anger andfeelings of revenge against ‘the other side’ andof reconciliation between communities hadactually removed children from communitiesthat had since moved on from the period ofconflict and where relations betweencommunities had slowly been rebuild. Thechildren however continued to live ininstitutions that were almost entirely segratedand as a result they were provided with fewopportunities to actually mix with childrenfrom the other community and understandtheir common experiences. This was found tobe the case for example with both Caleb Houseand Nurul Ikhlas in Maluku. This raises someserious worries about the challenges some ofthese children will face when they have to leavetheir institution and return to a world thathas actually moved on from the conflict.

As well as a general lack of awarenessabout the history of abuse and neglect ofchildren who were placed in their care, mostchildcare institutions showed also littleawareness that child protection concerns couldalso arise when children were in their care. Asa result, the issue of having an organisationalpolicy that explained how the institution andits staff should respond to such protectionconcerns was simply not on the agenda.

When asked about cases of violence inthe institution staff and managers tended torespond that there were none as the institutionwas operated under the principle of ‘lovingone another’ or ‘caring for one another’. Asthe Manager of Al Ummah explained, the valueson which the institution was based was thatyounger children were loved by the elderchildren and younger children respected thosethat are older. As a result, according to themanager, children protected one another and,“To date there’s been nothing to worry about.” .

Similarly, the head of Al Amin explainedhis approach to child protection,

“I strive to create a familial atmosphere inthis institution. I tell them that there all likemy own brothers and sisters. So we shouldall love and protect each other.Consequently, I require the small children tocall the older ones “kakak” (elder sister) or“abang” (elder brother), while the biggerchildren address the younger children bytheir first names.”

Some of the childcare institutions thatwere run by faith based organisations alsopointed to the fact that their faith would nottolerate violence and as such it could nothappen in the institution. That was the casefor example with Prajapati which is run by aBuddhist organisation,

“It is not possible that there could beviolence in this institution as Buddhistteaching tells us to love everyone, whatevertheir ethnic background, religion or familybackground.”

Similarly the manager of the Hindu basedDharma Laksana, which is explained how itapproached child protection, “By implanting asense of love and brotherhood in all of us here.”

When responding to questions on childprotection and violence however, mostManagers and staff understood this primarilyto be about violence perpetrated by childrenonto children. Few seemed to consider thepossibility of violence being carried out by staffor carers in the institutions, let alone otheradults outside of the institutions who may havecontact with the children. When asked about


page

168

cases of violence in Nirmala, the Managerexplained,

“Since I’ve been head of this institution,there have been no cases of violence. Ifthe children fight among themselves, theywill be warned or punished by, for example,not been given pocket money.”

A similar response was given by the headof Nurul Ikhlas,”The most common form ofviolence in the institution is fighting among thechildren, especially the boys. With the girls, it’s mostlyverbal.”

Violence between children was ‘checked’not only through the regular emphasis on actingas ‘brothers and sisters’ but also through strictenforcement of regulations and sanctionsagainst children who fought. As explained bythe head of Al Hidayah,

“The institution doesn’t have any specialprocedures to protect the children fromviolence. However, there are regulations laiddown by the institution’s management, whichare set out in the disciplinary rules of theinstitution.”

As we will see in the context of PersonalCare and the use of sanctions, fighting amongchildren tended to be formally prohibited bythe institutions and sanctioned. This was clearlyseen by many of the institutions as the primaryway of preventing violence among children. Achild in Muhammadiyah Meulaboh for examplerelated how cases of fighting among childrenwere resolved,

“There once was a brawl. The childreninvolved have left now.. . it was amisunderstanding... someone else stolesomething... they suspected us... we didn’tknow anything about it ... Once it was foundout about the brawl, we were all assembledand admonished, told where we went wrong... to be friends again.” (interview with child)

Similarly, children in Nirmala also explainedhow fights tended to happen and how theywere dealt with,

“When the girls fight, it usually doesn’t gofurther than shouting or ignoring eachother (as they don’t want to get intotrouble), but normally that doesn’t last for

long. But if the boys (elementary school andjunior high school) fight, they use their fistsand scream at each other. Once a pair ofboys had a one-on-one fight (this happensfrequently due to minor disputes such ascheating at volleyball or accidentally spillingfood or drink on another boy). Both of themwere summoned by the head and told theyhad done wrong and to make up. If a childmakes the same mistake twice, his parentswill be summoned to the institution. If thechild keeps making the same mistake, hewill be expelled and sent home to hisparents or family.”

While there was a general feeling by bothstaff and children that there was no violencein their institutions except for the occasionalfights between children, when asked aboutbeing hit though a totally different picturequickly emerged. Darul Aitam in NTB in thatregard provides a very telling example of this,

“We are usually hit if we don’t go to themushola (prayer house) or don’t work.Basically, if you break the rules, well you’ll bepunished. Maybe you won’t get breakfast, oryou could have your head shaved if you makethe same mistake continuously. Y had his headshaved because he often didn’t go to themushola. If you have a boyfriend or girlfriend,or steal, there’s no mercy and you’ll beexpelled. Once they found out that I’d beensitting together with a girl when I was outsidefor recreation. I was summoned as soon as Igot back and told not to see her again.”

Physical and psychological punishment wasfound in the majority of the childcareinstitutions. It was often routine and both staffand children had come to see this as part ofdaily lives. It was also generally not seen byeither of them as violence. As children fromHarapan in NTB explained,

“As for violence, there isn’t any. But there arepunishments if the children break the rules.These include being ordered to do squat jumpsor to do push ups by the carers for notperforming prayers or not doing picket duties.”(FGD with children)


page

169

As a way to educate and discipline children,the use of physical force together withhumiliating and degarding treatment waswidespread and many staff saw this as a keypart of their role. In fact, as we have seen above,together with organising the daily schedule andoverseeing the children, disciplining childrenwas seen as the primary role of carers. Thisbelief in the need to discipline children withforce seemed to be shared by many althoughfew expressed it as openly as one former carestaff at Muhammadiyah Lhoksemawe,

“Acehenese children are hard. There’s nopoint being soft with them, you have to behard. If you’re not hard, they won’t obey therules. So, we have to pinch and tweak them,shout at them, hit them, slap them,especially the big ones. If they go out all thetime at night, I’m not going to tolerate it. Isend them directly to (the institution head),or other carer.”

The forms of violence used in the contextof discipline or ‘educating children’ ranged frompunching, slapping, hitting with wood or rattancanes, pinching stomachs, pulling ears, makingthe children crawl in the mud, making themrun around the field, carrying heavy loads,making them stand in the sun, doing push upsor ‘scout jumps’, throwing dirty water on them,shaving the child’s head in public as well aslocking them up in toilets and other forms ofisolation. Generally the more serious theoffence or the more ‘naughty’ a child wasconsidered to be, the higher the level of physicalviolence. Interestingly ‘punching’ seemed to beperceived as bordering on violence in somecases and therefore not necessarily acceptablewhile all other forms of hitting were seen as

merely ‘punishment’ and not held as violence.Pinching the children’s stomach and caning withrattan were the most common forms ofpunishment but shaving of heads and throwingdirty water on children were also commonfor repeat offenders.

This scale in terms of the use of physicalforce was explained by the manager of UPRS,

“The policy is, yes, provide assistance. Withregard to policies on violence, at most I tellthe carers not to slap the children, but itsOK if they pinch or hit the boys on the legsif they get out of control. But they mustn’thit them on their torsos or the head. Butme, I’m a hard one, this is for the children’sown good. Sometimes even when we actharshly, the children don’t pay anyattention.”

Similarly in Huke Ina, another governmentinstitution, the use of violence by carers wasseen as essential by some because otherwisechildren would not learn,

“The response of the institution toviolence between the children is to slapboth of the offenders and tell themwhere they went wrong,”... if you don’tuse violence here, the children won’t listen”.(interview with staff)

In addition to physical force and humiliatingtreatment, children were given a range of othersanctions that involved doing extra chores suchas cleaning toilets, cutting grass, getting wateror having to learn by heart and recite majorparts of the Koran for which they would befurther punished if they did not succeed. Aswe will see in the later part of this reportdealing with sanctions, such punishments were


page

170

particularly prevalent for children who did notcarry out religious practices correctly in someof the Islam based childcare institutions.However similar sanctions were also found ina number of other types of institutionsincluding government ones for other violationsof the rules.

The explanation provided by childrenabout violations of rules and sanctionsincurred in Hidayatullah for example, is bothtelling and quite representative of thesituation found in many of the otherinstitutions,

Table 7 Violations committed by children and punishments received

Source: FGD with children, 30 January 2007

Child Code

Child 1

Child 1

Child 1

Child 1

Child 2

Child 2

Child 2

Child 3

Child 3

Child 4

Child 4

Child 4

Child 4

Child 5

Child 5

Child 5

Child 5

Violation

Late for prayers

Leaving institutionwithout permission

Fighting

Being out at nightwithout permission

Making fish bomb

Late for prayers

Late for prayers

Being out at nightwithout permission

Late for prayers

Going home withoutpermission

Late for prayers



Late for prayers

Eating with left hand

Eating while standing

Leaving the institutionwithout permission

Punishment

Cutting the grass in an area of approx. 50m2

Cleaning the toilets and filling the bathing tanks

Rolling around an area measuring 25 X 4 m2

Slapping and kicking


Pinched on the stomach


Slapping


Scolded






Pinching

Slapping


page

171

Children in Nurul Ikhlas recounted similarexperiences,

A10 (girl, grade 6 of elementary school ,15 years old :

Hit with a rattan cane on the legs, pinchedon the thighs leaving bruises, shouted at.The punishments meted out to A10 werebecause she frequently overslept for meals.If she didn’t turn up on time, then shemight not get anything. As she said, “Halfthe time I eat and half the time I don’t.”

A8 (girl, grade 1 of MAN, 16 years of age)

Scolded and hit for arriving late for meals

A9 (girl, grade 2 of junior high school, 14years of age)

Scolded and beaten with a rattan canefor being late for meals.

A11 (girl, grade 1 of MAN, 16 years ofage)

Scolded, hit with a rattan cane, deniedfood on account of being late for mealsand not performing picket duty.

A2 (girl, grade 3 of junior high school, 15years of age):

Scolded for burning the rice. Accordingto A2, this only happened because she hadto cook the rice during school hours. “Iforgot, I was in class. When I got back the ricehad been burned. The cook was really angry.”

A13 (boy, grade 4 of elementary school,10 years of age)

Frequently scolded by the cook and hitby the Head as he often gets in fightsand leaves the institution.

In most cases punishment wasadministered by the Manager or the staff butin a few of the institutions, children were alsocollectively punished for the wrongdoing of oneor forced to carry out the physical punishmentonto other children. This was apparently meantto ensure that all children felt punished. In oneof the government institutions, examples of thispractice were found as illustrated by the casebelow,

“One year ago, a girl (A6, grade 1 in highschool), slept overnight in a friend’shouse without permission. Uponreturning to the institution, she wasscolded by the staff. That evening,before dinner, all the children wereassembled in the kitchen. A senior staffordered A6’s classmates to pinch her.Then the children of the same religionas the girl (Catholic) were ordered topinch her. This took place before theassembled children and the other staff.In the end, the girl fainted, but nothingwas done to help her (after this, theother children lost their appetites, butwere nevertheless forced to eat). Manyof the children were reduced to tearsupon witnessing this spectacle. Theywere then scolded for this: “Who’scrying? What are you crying for? Those whofeel sorry for her, who are crying for her,step forward!” The terrified childrenremained where they were and driedtheir tears.

However, one child did step forward.When the senior staff asked her, “What are youcrying for”, the child said, “Have pity on her, Sir.”He replied “There’s no need to pity her, she brokethe rules.” After she came around, A6 wasordered to eat in front of the children. “PoorA6, she had to eat her food while crying. Her spoonwas shaking as she lifted it.”

“After dinner, she went to her room andlocked the door. She took a pair of scissors,intending to kill herself. Luckily, there wasanother girl in the room, who took thescissors from A6 before she could hurtherself.”

Another case involved A7, who was ingrade 3 of elementary school. During dinnerone night, a staff asked the child, “What timedid you get up at?” The child replied, “4 o’clock,Sir.” The staff repeated his question, becausenormally A7 got up at 5 o’clock. This time A7said that he had got up at 5 o’clock. The staffthen slapped him on the face. “So, why did yousay 4 o’clock?” A7 was also ordered to do pushups while the staff used his foot to press himdown on the floor. “Sir was really upset.” The


page

172

punishment inflected upon A7 is stil lremembered by A8, one of the older children.The occurrence reduced A8 to tears and shesays she will never forget it. “I’ll always rememberwhat happened. A little child was ordered to dopush ups and then pushed down. I couldn’t look atit, as he was being scolded and told off.”

Cases of punishment administered to allchildren for the fault of one were also foundas children in one institution explain,

“We were once hit by (staff member). Theproblem was that one of our friends orderedsoup at a food stall, but didn’t pay for it. (Thestaff member) found out, and in the end hehit us all with a piece of wood. “Why’s everyonebeing hit?” “Because if one does wrong, youall do wrong.”

In some of the institutions where therewere not enough adult staff to supervise, olderchildren were used to discipline youngerchildren creating problematic power relationsbetween the children, as in MuhammadyiahMeulaboh,

“As there was no carer specificallyassigned to the boys’ dormitory,responsibility for imposing punishment onthe elementary school children fell to thehigh school and college students. Thisinvolved the beating of the younger boysby the older boys.” (FGD with children)

This was also quite common in some ofthe more traditional Pesantren where a systeminvolving selected older children as head ofdormitories or as part of a ‘student body’ withpowers to make rules and bring sanctions tothe other children meant that, in many casesthese children had a role in ‘reporting’ on thebehaviour of the other children. This was seenfor example in Ibnu Taimyiah in WestKalimantan with its OPPPIT system(organisation of students of the PondokPesantren Ibnu Taimyiah),

“Supervision in the dormitories wascarried out by senior students whowere members of OPPPIT. These seniorswere responsible for supervising all theactivities of the other children, whetherchildren from the childcare institution

or fee-paying students. It should bestressed that the principal duty of theOPPPIT was to uphold discipline in thepesantren, rather than looking after thechildren. “No, Miss, it’s got nothing to dowith looking after them. The OPPPITmembers are only responsible for imposingpunishments.” (interview with child)

The OPPPIT, for example, played a key rolein sanctioning children who broke the ruleprohibiting them from speaking their locallanguage and they would fine the repeatoffenders or get them to stand in the sunholding a sign hanging around their neck saying‘Don’t be like him’.

Children often took this treatment as agiven and had been clearly told, and in somecases had come to believe, that this was fortheir own good and their education. Whenrecounting about the punishments theyreceived, some of the children in Darul Hikmahstated,

“M is always breaking the rules and we allget punished. Also, if it’s time to get up fortahajud prayers and we don’t wake up, Ms.I (a member of staff) throws water on us.”According to the children, if they arepunished, it is because they have brokenthe rules and so they just accept it.”

The research showed, however, that it wasthe humiliating and degrading treatment at thehands of the staff of the institutions that insome instances upset them most, even whenit was only verbal.

In one institution, for example, some ofthe children explained that while under theprevious management they had receivedphysical punishments, it was the emotionalviolence that they now received under thepresent management to which they objectedthe most. The children explained that,

‘...Emotional violence is frequentlyinflicted by one of the members of theFoundation, who regularly scolds thechildren using abusive language, such ascalling the children “ungrateful wretches.”Emotional violence is often directed atchildren considered to have broken the


page

173

rules. For example, a child who isfrequently late returning home to theinstitution (after 22:00), whatever thereason. Such a child will be “put ontrial” in front of the other children.According to the member of the Found-ation, she does this so as to discouragethe other children from committing thesame violation. The words that she oftendirects at them include: “You, you’re givenfood and lodging here, but you still don’twant to obey the rules. So, what are youdoing here? If you don’t like the rules, justget out!” Sometimes, she doesn’t hesitateto order the children out in front of theforum. The children feel embarrassedbeing scolded by this manager, andhumiliated in front of the other children,which is the reason why some leave theinstitution. Among them are a numberof children who were so upset by beingtold to leave, that in the end they didactually leave the institution and returnhome to their parents.”

The use of public shaming sessions or‘trials’ for children who were deemed to haveviolated the rules of the institution but alsothe use of derogatory terms and name callingwas found in a number of childcare institutions.

In one institution, children expressedfeelings of being hurt in particular by the thewords used by their carers to denigrate themand their families such as,

“Now everything is hunky dory... justremember that you were eating rubber treeseeds before.”

Another child said that she felt really ’hurt’when she heard those words from the staff.“As poor as we were, we never had to eat rubbertree seeds, Miss. It’s horrible having to listen tothat.”

In addition their carers often referred tothem as ’pigs’ (“kunyuk” in the local languageand a particularly derogatory terms forMuslims) or called them ‘lazy’

Other instances were found wherechildren were reminded regularly of the factthat their families were poor to ensure thatthey felt ’grateful’ for whatever they were givenin the institution and would ‘behave’. In one ofthe government institutions, remonstrating achild sometimes entailed threatening to expelher and then letting her know ‘what to expect’,

“... For example, I’ll say to them, ‘If the staffhere don’t like you anymore, then you areexpelled what are you going to do? It’s hardenough for your mother to find food to eat,let alone having a girl as a child... With boys,they can sleep anywhere and that’s notrouble but with girls, don’t they risk beingin trouble?’ ‘Yes, that’s the way I talk towhen admonishing them. They often startcrying’.”

In UPRS, children are required to reciteout an oath everyday before the evening mealwhich is plastered on the walls and doors ofmost of the key buildings and that leaves themin little doubt about how the institution andtheir carers view them,

UPRS Students’ Oath“I am here because my parents cannot pay for my education. Because of this, I will follow all

the rules of this institution and will accept expulsion if I break them.

I will abandon all of my bad habits, laziness, dishonesty and trickery.

I will be disciplined and study hard, honest and polite at all times which are to be the ultimatevalues to be followed, so as to become a useful person for the nation, society and my family andmyself.

Here I will show care for the other children, the environment, and I will grow and develop asa person not as someone who is dead but as someone who is alive in real life and as someone ofvalue to both myself and other people.”


page

174

A later addition to the oath which had tobe recited by the children every time the oathwas recited stated,

“I am not just here to eat, sleep, study, anddefecate, but I must be clever!”

While the use of violence to discipline andpunish children was still widespread andcommon, there was also some indications thatgreater public awareness of violence againstchildren was starting to have an impact in someof the institutions.

In Suci Hati for example, the Manager ofthe institution had given the instructions tothe staff that in line with the socializationaround Law no 23 on Child Protection, theywould no longer be able to hit children,

“From now on there will be no more hitting... everywhere, not just in the institution ...the government has also said this.” (FGDwith boys)

In other institutions, cases of violence thatwere deemed to have gone ’over the limits’had actually led to the staff in question beingeither replaced or moved. In Hidayatullah forexample, as a result of a particularly violentbeating given by a staff to one of the children,discussions had taken place among the staffand it was decided that the use of certain formsof violence deemed too serious were notallowed anymore,

“There once was a case here of violencebeing inflicted by a staff member on a child.It was considered that his actions wereexcessive. So, a meeting of all the managerswas held to discuss the case. As a result ofthis, excessive actions, like hitting, slappingand kicking that could endanger thechildren, have not been repeated.”(interview with staff)

In one institution in Aceh, a staff that wasrecognised as having been particularly fond ofphysical punishment was moved on but onlyto become the head of their school,

“With regard to the staff, before we had X.He was a real disciplinarian. But I mustadmit, the children here are really spoiled.Some of them are lazy about praying or

studying. Normally, the child would beshouted out... but if they didn’t do whatthey were supposed to do ...ya, just givethem a slap. So, I saw the purpose of it. Itwas to educate the children. But there weresome staff who didn’t agree with this. So,there was some conflict about how thechildren should be educated. In the end, Xresigned. Now he’s the head of the AliyahMuhammadiyah Madrasah.” (interview withstaff)

Similarly, in another institution in WestKalimantan, a previous manager was removedas a result of children’s complaints to thefounder about his use of violence. However,the present manager and his wife also usephysical punishment and that has not yet beenreported. The fact that the previous processhad entailed children being gathered togetherin a group and asked one by one their view,seemed to have put off the children fromreporting any further violence to the founder.

In fact there were generally no formalavenue or mechanism in place for children toreport cases of violence or other concernsthey may have and certainly no confidentialones. As a result, in cases where children mayhave wanted to share some of their concerns,the real possibility of retaliation by staff wasalways present as can be seen in Ana’s LifeStory at the beginning of this report. One ofthe key rules for many of the institution is thatthe child will not ’bad mouth’ or bring any illrepute to the institution and this is oftenunderstood to mean that children are notallowed to speak about what is happening inthe institution or be critical of it with theoutside world. As no mechanism for reportingis provided within it, it leaves children with littleavenue for getting their concerns addressed.

Another illustration of what could happenwhen children tried to report their concernswas provided by a Government institution forgirls. The children had felt that the situation inthe institution had dramatically changedfollowing the arrival of a new manager. Personalrelations with the new manager weredeteriorating fast and children feltuncomfortable with her as well as angry thattheir school fees that had previously been paid


page

175

by the institution were no longer being paid.Some of the children took it upon themselvesto write a letter explaining their situation tothe local department of Social Welfare underwhich this institution operated. As a result, ateam was sent from that department andquestions were asked of the new Manager whowas given 3 months to overcome some of theproblems. While school fees started to getpaid again not long after the team left, some ofthe children were also called up by the Managerand questionned about their role in this matter.This resulted in further worsening ofrelationships between the children and themanager.

In that regard, it was particulary worryingto find that none of the institutions seemed tohave any awareness of the potential impact ofviolence or other forms of harm on childrenin a context where power relations areextremely pronounced and where children’svulnerabilty is therefore very acute. The lackof a child protection mechanism meant thatchildren were left unclear not only about whatwas appropriate behaviour but also to whomto report any concerns they may have had andhow to do safely. Even where children hadbecome aware of their rights in relation toviolence through education at school forexample, they were provided with nomechanism through which they could ensuretheir implementation.

Al Ummah was a case in point,

‘A number of the junior high schoolgirls said that they had been taughtabout child protection, and what theirrights and obligations were. The saidthat they had been told at school thatchildren were not supposed to be hit orslapped. However, none of the children(boys or girls) knew what proceduresshould be followed or what they shoulddo if they were subjected to violence –how or to whom they should reportsuch incidents. Meanwhile, one boys saidthat the procedure used by the carersto prevent violence was merely to say“No fighting”

While many institutions spoke of childrenbeing able to speak to anyone and report

matters to anyone, it was far from clear howthey would be able to do so safely in anenvironment where violence is often used andeven where it is not, their ability to continueto access education is entirely dependent onthe will of the institution’s manager and staff.In that context, the research found cases ofchildren being willing to put up with some verydifficult conditions and even with physicalpunishment rather than endanger their chanceof finishing school.

In addition to violence by the staff in theinstitutions, children also identified violence atschool as a key concern, both in relation tophysical punishment by teachers and in onecase, derogatory treatment by other childrenat school.

In Darul Ulum for example, childrenpointed out that while physical violence wasnot used inside the institution itself, it was usedin its school,

“... if any one breaks the rules, he’ll be toldoff. No one beats us, but we can be orderedto stand in the sun or be slapped with arattan cane.”

Similarly with Al Ummah, it seemed thatwhile some of the older children were beingtold of their right not to be beaten, theelementary school level children were facingexactly that from their teachers,

‘The physical punishments applied bythe teachers included hitting with abook or ruler. Such punishments wouldbe applied if a child committed aninfraction like not doing his homeworkor raising the flag the wrong way duringthe flag-raising ceremony.’

In Wahyu Yoga Dharma on the other hand,children spoke of being often called names atschool or being ridiculed by other children,including,

“ ‘nerd’…‘village bumpkin’…’you’re apauper with things you shouldn’t have’(trumped up pauper)…‘child of thepanti/institution’…’that’s what childrenfrom care are like!’...”

Violence among children in the institutionswas also not just a matter of arguments or


page

176

fighting. In many cases, the system of puttingyounger children with older children meantthat children looked after one another butthere were also instances of bullying and olderchildren in a number of institutions tended touse their position to ‘boss around’ the youngerones, particularly in order to get them to takeon the daily chores. In Patmos for example,the Manager did recognise that it had happenedin some cases,

“There used to be a lot of that, Miss. Oneof the bigger kids ... would send the smallerones to fetch water. If they didn’t do it,they’d get a beating. But he’s graduatednow and returned home to Kupang.”.

In Muhammadiyah Meulaboh, the researchalso found that younger children were beingordered around by the older ones,

‘The smaller children, both girls and boys,were frequently ordered around by theolder children. This included being orderedto carry the belongings of the older childrenor to go to the food stall for them. Theyounger children were unable to refusesuch orders. It also appeared that theyounger children were somewhat scared ofthe older children.”

In that regard, relations between older andyounger children could sometimes be strainedas was found in Darrurokhmah betweenchildren who had already graduated and weretaking on ‘oversight/care’ roles and the youngerchildren.

Two of the children expressed thosefeelings of resentment also through theirwriting, in particular complaining about whatthey felt was unfair treatment by the older girls,

“I would like the older girls who havegraduated, when they’re telling us what todo, to remember what they were likethemselves. Didn’t they also break therules? I’ve seen them playing up, denyingthings that they had done when they gotfound out.”

“I just want to see everyone being treatedthe same. We’re all the same. If the oldergirls want to give us a telling of, they

shouldn’t be rude. Those of you who want togive us advice, please use polite language!”

This research found on the whole thoughthat children had built extremely supportiveand solid relationships with one another, oftenproviding the only secure emotionalattachment which they could rely on. This wasparticularly the case as a result of the generalabsence of adult carers who could fulfill theseneeds but also as a result of their sharedexperiences and situations. As we will see inthe Personal Care section, it was striking thatchildren always referred to other children inthe institutions in terms of their primarysupport network and the people they couldshare things with and could trust. In institutionswhere physical punishment and sanctions wereparticularly harsh, a real sense of ’them’ and’us’ had developed among children and theyhad formed their own protective networks inparticular in opposition to adults. This meantthat in many cases, children would not reporton other children and would often prefer toresolve their own problems betweenthemselves rather than having those referredto adults. It also meant that in some of thecases where children were used by adults tocarry out physical punishment, children tendedto ’play out’ the punishment whenever possible,pretending to hit and being hit to satisfy theadults but supporting their peers first of all.

These positive relationships also seemedto extend to relations between children ofopposite sex in the mixed institutions whereboys and girls were allowed contact. In manycases boys and girls were seen to be verysupportive as well as very protective of oneanother. As one girl in one of the institution inAceh explained in relation to one of the olderboys in the institution,

“V is a good older brother as he oftenbrings the children home to their villages.He also often lends money to the children ifthey need it. He also takes them to theCommunity Health Clinic (Puskesmas) ifthey are sick.”

Remarkably perhaps, considering the levelsof violence experienced by many of thesechildren and the closed and over-regulated


page

177

world in which they live, almost no instance ofsexual violence were identified or referred toby the children. Bearing in mind the sensitivityof such cases and the stigma often associatedwith them, it is quite possible that more indepth and specific research is needed in orderto get a true picture of sexual violence in theinstitutions, whether committed by adult carersonto children or between the childrenthemselves. In a couple of instances, however,such cases had previously come to the surface,

In one institution in West Kalimantan in2004, a case of sexual violence involving twochildren from the same institution wasdetected. It is telling however that it was theteacher at school rather than the carers at theinstitution that recognised what had happenedto the children in their care,

“A case of sexual violence occurred inthis institution in 2004, involving a boywho was in grade 3 of Junior HighSchool at the time and a girl who was ingrade 5 of elementary school. The boywas accused of raping this girl. This casecame to light after the girl, who hadpreviously been very outgoing at school,suddenly became withdrawn andintroverted. Her teacher noticed thechange and asked her what the matterwas, whereupon she revealed what hadhappened. The case eventually ended upin court.

The head of the institution and carerstestified during the court hearing. Theboy was found guilty and received aprison term of 3 years. Meanwhile, thegirl ran away from the institution andher whereabouts are unknown. She feltgreat shame as a result of the incidentas it was widely talked about and evenappeared in the local newspaper. Theinstitution head sought to find her andreported her disappearance to thepolice. But she has still not been found.It is rumored that she is currentlyworking in Malaysia, although there is noword as to what work she is doingthere.’

The way this case was handled withoutprotecting the identity of the victim orproviding her with support afterwards pointto the serious limitations on the part of thechildcare institutions when it comes to childprotection.

In addition, the case of another institutionalso raises some serious concerns in relationto the protection of children. That institutionhad actually been first established in 1990 butwas closed down after it was discovered thatone of the staff had raped and got pregnantone of the girls in its care. As a result,

“The carer in question was sentencedto 3 years in jail. After news of thissurfaced, there was a crisis ofconfidence in the institution, and peoplewere no longer willing to place theirtrust in it. One by one the children werewithdrawn by their parents or guardians,and in 1998 the institution was officiallyclosed.”

It is interesting to note that thesurrounding community actually responded tothis case once identified but there is noindication that the parent organisation, had anymechanism in place at the time to prevent suchviolence taking place in the first place nor thatit has established such a system since. In fact,while it reopened 4 years later with a newmanager and a new focus, the research foundthat it still had no system to ensure thatviolence against children within that institutiondid not take place. Instead as explained by itsmanager,

“We have no specific child protection policy,except that we are guided by the ChildProtection Law. Should a case of violenceoccur here, for example, if I were to beat achild, I’m sure that one of the childrenwould report this to one of the ustad orustadzah, or directly to the foundationexecutives as they come here on informalvisits almost every day to inspect thecondition of the institution and the children.In other words, the children are free torelate whatever happens to them.”


page

178

In that context, the research found onlytwo cases of referral by the childcareinstitutions to a child protection agency ornetwork. Darul Aitam in NTB once referredthe case of one its students that had run awayto get married without consent. “Elopementis actually allowed under ‘adat’ (traditional law)in Lombok, and normally takes place when thegirl’s family object to the marriage. In such cases,the girl is normally hidden by the boy’s familyfor a few days, and then the boy asks the girl’sfamily to set a date for the wedding.”

As we saw earlier, SOS Desa Taruna wasthe only institution which had a policystatement on child protection and staff wereprovided some training on violence againstchildren and on recognizing and responding tosigns of violence. The manager explained thatwhen he was working in the institution inFlores, he had reported a teacher to the localchild protection agency for hitting one of theinstitution’s children and the teacher had beenprosecuted.

In addition to violence against children, theresearch also found some evidence of self-harmincluding two cases of children who had triedto kill themselves. In one case, staff had orderedchildren in an institution in West Kalimantanto punish one of the girls by pinching herrepeatedly in front of everyone. As a result ofthe punishment, the girl fell and fainted. Shethen ran to her room with scissors in orderto try to kill herself. In her room, one of herfriend managed to wrestle the scissors from

her. Her friends in the institution say that sheis often sick and weak, quickly lose hope andas soon as there is a problem or she is undersome pressure, she faints.

In another case in Maluku, a teenage girlhad been struggling with her own sense ofidentity including her identity as a youngwoman. According to the psychologist workingwith the institution, this was the result of thetrauma she had experienced at discovering thebodies of her parents who had been murderedduring the conflict. As a result of the enormouspsychological pressure she felt under, she hadtried a couple of times to kill herself. Whilethe girl in this case was provided ’treatment’by the childcare institution, the focus seemedto be more on getting her to accept her genderas a young woman rather than actuallyaddressing her deep psychological scars as aresult of the death of her parents.

By not ensuring that children weresupported and felt they could confide anddevelop relationships of trust with significantadults both within and outside of theinstitutions, those childcare institutions wereleaving children extremely vulnerable andisolated when faced with both personal andpsychological struggles. There seemed littleawareness in the childcare institutions aboutthe potential for self harm when children areleft without support system and on their ownto cope with personal crises including theemotional impact of violence whethercommitted in the institution or outside.


page

179

Lina is a dark complexioned, straight-hairedand very withdrawn girl, and appeared somewhattense when being interviewed. She has justturned 13 and is in grade 7 (grade 1 of juniorhigh school) at the State Junior High School inTondano. It proved to be very difficult to elicitinformation from her, with her responses toquestions generally being very brief. She said thatshe had entered the childcare institution whenshe was six, which would mean that she has beenin the home for seven years. This was confirmedby the head of the childcare institution, and theinstitution’s cook).

When asked how she had came to be inthe childcare institution, Lina replied that shecould only remember running onto a ship withher aunt (her father’s younger sister), Aunt E,whose husband was Manadonese, and lived inManado. They were fleeing from the troubles inAmbon. Lina had almost fallen victim to theAmbon troubles, which had resulted in so muchloss of life. “I was slashed ...”, she recalled. Thescar on the back of her is still visible, although ithas started to slowly disappear. According to oneof the staff, during her first months in thechildcare institution, Lina’s sleep was disturbed,and she was easily startled.

Afterwards, Lina was brought to Manadoto live with her Aunt E’s family. However, thingsdid not go well for Lina, as her uncle wouldfrequently vent his anger on her whenever hequarrelled with her aunt. In addition, her uncle’sparents would also pick on her. Lina wasfrequently abused, and referred to as Aunt E’s“bastard daughter”. One of the neighbours, theinstitution’s cook who was a relation of Lina’suncle was upset to see Lina being constantlysubjected to such abuse and resolved to do

LIFE STORY:

Lina, 13 years old girl (North Sulawesi)

something to help her. She spoke to Aunt E,explaining that she was the cook at the childcareinstitution and that she wanted to bring Lina tolive there. To cut a long story short, that washow Lina ended up in the childcare institution inTondano.

Ideally, the family should be the safest andmost comfortable environment for a child.However, this was not to be so in Lina’s case.When asked about her family, she could onlyremember the names of her father and motherand that they came from Toliang-Ambon. Linawas the youngest of 4 children. The first childwas a boy, the second a girl, the third a boy, andthen Lina. Of her three siblings, she could onlyremember the name of her elder sister. She hadalready completely forgotten the names of hertwo brothers. It appeared that Lina’s links to herfamily in Ambon had been almost completelysevered.

Some 4 months ago however, one of herbrothers, who was carrying out an assignmentat the Manado State University in Tondano,arrived at the childcare institution to bring Linaback home. Lina didn’t recognize him at all. Infact, she was afraid and didn’t want to return toAmbon. In order to build up trust, the head ofthe childcare institution, advised the family toregularly send things to Lina. In this way, shewould come to know them better. However, todate Lina appears to prefer living in the childcareinstitution with her close friends, who like tojoke and kid around with her. And so, Lina is stillin the institution. While the other children inthe institution normally return home twice a yearduring the school vacations (July and December),she still has not desire to return to Ambon. ForLina, her home is now the childcare institution.


page

180

“Someone That Matters” | X. Personal care

page

181

X. Personal care

IN THIS SECTION, we discuss personal care, that is, how the childcare institution managesthe care and maintenance of the children under its care, including such aspects as food, play andrecreation, care of children in residential institutions, privacy, choices, dignity, social relations,identity, upkeep, control and sanctions, children’s views, and the care of infants and youngerchildren.

The informants were selected from among suitable individuals that were competent to provideanswers on the aspects being studied. They consisted of members of the childcare institution’sparent organisation, its manager, its staff including social workers, carers, cooks, guards dependingon the aspects being assessed as well as the children themselves. Teachers, doctors and nurseswere also interviewed as whenever possible some parents. In order to ensure consistency in the


page

182

information obtained, a number of responsesgiven by each informant were crosscheckedwith those given by other informants.

Food

In all of the childcare institutions studied,the children received three meals per day –breakfast, lunch and dinner although thequantity and quality varied significantly acrossthe institutions. As regards the quantity andquality of food, it was found to be generallybetter in Government institutions that inprivate ones. In Harapan for example, agovernment institution in NTB, the childrenwere served quite a varied range of food,including fish, meat and vegetables at designatedtimes. The children also received snacks twicea day (in the afternoon and at 10 p.m. afterthey had finished studying). Sometimes thechildren were also given milk to drink in themorning. On the other hand, in Lohoraung agovernment institution in North Sulawesi,children were served the same food for lunchand dinner, a quite typical practice which meantthat different meals did not have to beprepared.

The picture was a lot more varied acrossthe private institutions. In the majority ofinstitutions, children were served rice, avegetable like cabbage or morning glory, tempe(fermented soybean cake), chilli, salted fish, andeither fish or an egg once a day. In some, thefood provided was even more limited. In NTBfor example, in Darul Aitam, Darul Hikmah, AlIkhlas and Patmos, the children were fed threetimes a day on rice, vegetables, chilli and onlyoccasionally fish. They were rarely servedchicken or meat. They normally only receivedthese during ceremonial or ritual meals. As onechild from an institution in NTB said, “... it’sreally nice when we’re invited to an Iziban a week.”1… “It’s making up for our nutrition, Miss.”

The same was found in childcareinstitutions in other provinces as meat seemedto be available only if there were specialoccasions. A child in Aceh explained “Chicken ...where are we going to get chicken from ... we getchicken if there’s a ceremony...” and “Mutton ... we

get mutton if someone’s hosting a sedekah(religious-linked meal)”. Government institutionsalso provided meat only a couple of times aweek. Unlike the other childcare institutions,Prajapati in North Sulawesi adhered to theprinciple of vegetarianism in line with Buddhistteachings. Breakfast consisted of rice porridge(bubur) on its own, or rice porridge mixed withgreen beans, accompanied by biscuits.Meanwhile, lunch and dinner consisted of riceand a number of different vegetables.

Even though the children received threemeals per day, the quantity and variety wasoften limited and in some cases was clearlyinadequate for children that were still growing.Not all of the childcare institutions allowedthe children to get additional serving. In anumber of institutions, the food was dividedout by the kitchen staff and no “seconds” werepermitted. If seconds were allowed, then thiswould be confined to rice, and excludevegetables and side dishes. Children who werestill hungry would have to fill themselves withrice or whatever else was still available. Ingeneral, children were not afraid of seekingextra food: “If I’m still hungry, I’ll do it, Miss.”According to one child in NTB, however: “Ifwe’re still hungry, we just go to sleep ...” In somechildcare institutions, additional food took theform of instant noodles, which would normallybe consumed in the evenings or at night.

Only Pamardi Utomo, a governmentinstitution in Central Java had consulted withthe local Health Centre (Puskesmas) about thenutritional needs of the children in its care. Inthe majority of childcare institutions however,the government standards for nutrition (4 ishealthy and 5 is perfect) were not satisfied.

The food most commonly and frequentlyserved consisted of rice, vegetables, tempeh(fermented soya bean cake), salted fish and chilli.Milk was sometimes given but fruits were notoften provided which is surprising in a contextwhere fresh fruits are readily available andcheap. The menus in the childcare institutionswere determined by the management or thecook usually on a daily basis according to whatthey had found at the market. The same appliedto the purchasing of food. A different situation


page

183

however, prevailed in SOS Desa Taruna and Dr.J. Lukas, which are institutions that haveadopted the “cottage model”, whereresponsibility for the menu was delegated toeach family.

Generally children were not involved indeciding the menu or buying the food althoughin some institutions they were sometimesasked for their suggestions. In these institutions,the cook would ask the children what theywould like to eat. For example, a child in theMuhammadiyah childcare institution in CentralJava recounted as follows, “If I’m asked by (thecook) to go shopping with her, she often asks mewhat we like to eat. I often tell her what my andthe other kids’ favourite foods are so that no onewill be complaining about (the cook)’s food. But, Iknow that the institution probably doesn’t haveenough money to satisfy everything that thechildren want.”

In one institution, children complained thatthe food had changed after a new manager wasbrought in. One child said, “Before, it used to be“four healthy, five perfect”. Now, it’s one healthy,five sick.” Ever since the management of thischildcare institution had changed, the childrenno longer received milk to drink every day, andthey felt that the food was no longer tasty orserved in line with the menu schedule.

Quality and quantity of food inrelation to available funding

Serving three meals a day is obviously acostly exercise and the childcare institutions

were found to spend very different amount ofmoney on it. The situation was worse in DarulAitam in NTB, which allocated only Rp 1,000(0.11USD) per day per child not including thecost of rice to provide for three daily meals.Hidayatullah in Maluku only provided Rp 3,000(0.33USD). SOS Desa Taruna allocated Rp3,500 (0.38 USD) per child per day forelementary-school-age and younger children,and Rp 4,500 (0.50 USD) for junior high andsenior high school children. Darul Ulum in Acehallocated Rp 4,000 (0.44 USD) per day perchild. At Dr. J. Lukas, the amount allocated tofood was higher at Rp 5,500 (0.61 USD) perchild per day, excluding rice. The situation wasbetter at Nur Ilahi in West Kalimantan, wherethe budget to feed 35 children is Rp 300,000per day or an allocation of Rp. 8600 (0.95 USD)per child per day. All of these institutionsreceived the BBM subsidy scheme thatprovided them in 2006 with Rp. 2250 per childper day (0.25 USD) rising a little in 2007 to Rp.2300.

On average, the amounts allocated forfood tended to be much higher in thegovernment childcare institutions. In UPRS inWest Kalimantan, for example, Rp 12,000 (1.33USD) was allocated per child per day whileHarapan in NTB provided Rp 9,000 (1 USD)per child per day, with this money beingprovided out of the provincial budget whilethe BBM subsidy money was used to purchasesnacks for the children. Nirmala in Acehallocated Rp 10,000 per day (1.10 USD)including the purchase of milk. Meanwhile, inPamardi Utomo and Lohoraung, Rp 7,500 (0.83


page

184

USD) and Rp 5,500 (0.61 USD) was allocatedto feed each child per day. The biggest amountallocated for food was found in Huke Ina inMaluku where Rp 20,750, (2.30 USD) wasallocated per child per day consisting of a foodsubsidy from the local government budget ofRp 12,500 (1.39 USD) for meals and Rp 6,000(0.67 USD) for snacks two times per day, aswell as Rp 2,250 (0.25 USD) from the BBMsubsidy funds. As can be seen, there are widevariations between childcare institutions withthe allocation on average of more than Rp5,000 per child per day for the provision ofthree meals in Government institutions whileprivate institutions allocated less than Rp 5,000per day on average.

The research found that cooks and kitchenstaff had general awareness of the differingnutritional requirements of children of variousages, but were required to keep within theirbudgets. Funding problems related not only toa lack of funds on the part of the institutionsbut also on the way spending was prioritised.For example, the money allocated for food inone childcare institution in NTB was also usedto pay for the costs of education andhealthcare. At the time of the assessment, thefood suddenly improved in that particularinstitution, with the children being served eggs,chicken and fresh fruit in the form ofwatermelon – foods that the children rarelyreceived. The research found that foodallocation was frequently not prioritised as theinstitutions tended to compare the children’scurrent circumstances to what they were usedto at home, with the food in the childcareinstitution normally being better. One childresiding in Muhammadiyah in Cilacap remarkedas follows: “Compared to other people who find ithard to get food, we never go hungry. Even thoughthe food is simple, at least we get fed every day.”As a result though, while children received 3meals a day the research found that in manycases the food provided was not optimal interms of the needs of children both in termsof quality of nutrition and quantity.

The children were found to be involvedin all stages of food preparation and cooking.In fact, this was one of the compulsory choresrequired of the children under the “picket”

system. Their involvement included cleaning,cutting and slicing, preparing the seasoning,cooking, serving, dishing out food to the otherchildren and washing the dishes after the meal.The compulsory work in relation to foodpreparation varied from one institution toanother, but all were basically related to theabove activities. In some of the institutions, thechildren were also assigned additional work,including collecting firewood in the forest andcutting it, as in the case of the Ibnu Taimiyah,Eben Haezer, and Nurul Ikhlas. In Nur Ilahi,children were also involved in the shoppingand in determining the menu.

While in general the cooking was seen asgirls’ work, boys were also involved in some ofthe institutions, while girls were involved incollecting firewood sometimes seen as boy’swork. In the Ibnu Taimiyah childcare institution,which is linked to a pesantren, the children notonly prepared meals for the other children inthe institution, but also for the family of thepesantren leader and those pesantren studentswho paid fees and were thereby excusedkitchen duties:

“All of the girls in the institution take turnsunder the “picket” system to cook. Inaddition to doing so for all of the children inthe pesantren, they are also required aspart of their “picket” duties to cook for thefamily of the pesantren head.

The same obligation applies to all of theboys in the institution who are required to


page

185

perform the same duties, although theamount of time devoted to each taskdiffers. Under the “picket” system, all of theboys are required to collect and cutfirewood for cooking. They are also requiredto cook rice and boil water, and to servefood to the other children.”

Children on “picket” duty were normallyrequired to rise earlier than the other children.For example, at Eben Haezer in WestKalimantan, the children on duty were requiredto get up at 2 a.m., whereas the other childrenrose at 3:30 a.m. for religious meditation. Aspart of their picket duties, the children werenormally required to help the kitchen staff.

In general, the childcare institutionsprovided the children with their own foodrecipients or container, sometimes plates,together with utensils in the form of glasses,and spoons and forks, or were equipped withlarge food trays where rice, vegetables and sidedishes were laid out. However, some of theinstitutions, such as Darul Hikmah, sufferedfrom a lack of plates so that latecomers hadto wait for the children who were there firstto finish eating. The children themselves didthe washing up and putting away of the diningutensils. These were either kept communallyin the kitchen or individually in the children’slockers or rooms. In all cases, the dining utensilswere washed after use. However, the assessorsfound the proper hygiene was not observed inall cases as sometimes washing-up soap orliquid was not available, while the sanitationconditions in a number of institutions weredeficient, including lack of proper attention todrains and garbage disposal.

Meal times were greatly looked forwardto by the children, even where they wereresponsible for cooking the meals themselves.Disappointment sometimes arose howeverwhen one child’s food was eaten by another,even though an individual portion was assignedto each child. This seemed to happen primarilywhen some of the children were late comingback from school. As the food was generallytightly apportioned, this could mean childrengoing without food. Time for meals weregenerally pre-set and were the same for all

children except in some institutions childrenfrom elementary schools that tend to finishearlier were fed first. Evening meals howeverwere taken communally and prayers beforemeals were mandatory, whether said privatelyor en masse. Some of the childcare institutionshad specific arrangements at mealtimes. In theUPRS, for example, after the bell announcingthe meal was ready to be served, the childrenwould have to line up in ranks first, andpronounce the “children’s oath” in militaryfashion before proceeding to eat.

The government childcare institutions, ingeneral, had dining halls where the childrenwould assemble at the set times for breakfast,lunch and dinner. By contrast, not all of theprivately run institutions had dining halls. Insome, meals were served in the assembly hall,guest room, kitchen or in the yard werechildren would sit or crouch on the floor toeat their meal. In Ibnu Taimiyah, the childrenate their meals in their rooms/dormitories.

Adults were found to rarely dine with thechildren. If adults were present, this was forsupervision purposes only. The assessors foundthat the children generally were relaxed andhappy at meal times as not only they weregetting sustenance, but they could also meetup with all the other children, and were freefrom pressure or the threat of punishmentfrom the managers or staff. In some of theinstitutions however, eating time were muchmore regulated and children were made to lineup to be counted, had to enter the dining hallone by one and eat in an orderly fashion underthe supervision of the staff.

Some of the childcare institutionsprovided porridge for children if they were sick.However, others did not if the sick child wasstill able to eat rice. In the UPRS for example,sick children continued to be served the samemeals. If a child was seriously ill, his or herfood would be brought by another child, butthe food would continue to be the same.During the fasting month (Ramadan), mealtimes would be adjusted so that breakfastwould be served before dawn, with a breaking-of-the-fast meal in the evening, normallysupplemented by sweet treats. The fasting


page

186

month also sees people donating food tochildcare institutions, often all at the same time,so that there could be a surplus of food. Inone institution in Kalimantan, it was found thatthe staff would serve the surplus food the nextday without being reheated first. The childrencomplained that “... sometimes the staffs keepthe cake for a long time and only bring it out whenit’s almost mouldy.” As a result the children wereonce served spoiled food on one occasionduring the fasting month, and they suffered foodpoisoning. A number of institutions were foundnot to cook food for the evening meal, insteadreheating food from the afternoon, or onlycooking once in the morning, with this foodalso being served for the afternoon and eveningmeals.

Drinking water generally tended to beprovided by boiling water and placing it in adispenser or container. Preparing water fordrinking was often part of the children’s chores.Water however was found not to always beavailable and easily accessible, in particular atnight. In a number of institutions, the childrenbrought water in glasses or an empty bottleto their rooms. A few institutions provided amineral water dispenser.

On the other hand, drinking water wasnot provided at all in Darul Hikmah and AlIkhlas in NTB and as a result children wereforced to drink untreated well water or waterfrom a collection tank. The children said thatthey were used to this and rarely suffered fromstomach complaints. Some of the girls howeverexplained that they refrained from drinkingwater after eating as there was no way to boilthe water. In NTB, there seemed to be apopular belief that untreated water was best.However, this may well be due to a lack ofawareness that water in rural areas is differentfrom water in the towns and urban areas wherethe childcare institutions are located.

Health

Wide variations were found regarding theprovision of healthcare services to theinstitutionalized children. The Governmentinstitutions were found to generally be

equipped with First Aid kits including somegeneric medicine kept in a room put aside forhealth purposes. They also worked togetherwith their local community health centre(Puskesmas) or a local doctor. On the otherhand while some of the private childcareinstitutions had similar facilities, others hadnone whatsoever. Ibnu Taimiayah in WestKalimantan, for example, would send sickchildren to the Puskesmas or hospital: “Or, ifnecessary, we would seek help from the child’ssponsor (“bapak angkat”). So, we can say that wehave a health section.”2 Similarly Darul Hikmahdid not have any First Aid kit and tended tosend children to buy basic medicines at thelocal corner store whenever needed or to thelocal health centre. Darul Aitam on the otherhand operated a clinic which was attended bya nurse from the local Puskesmas everyThursday from 9 a.m. until 2 p.m. Similarly, adoctor provided free medical services at theSOS Desa Taruna home every Tuesday, Thursdayand Saturday. Eben Haezer also ran a localcommunity clinic and the children from theinstitution could visit whenever needed.

In general, health problems suffered by thechildren were addressed by the institution’smanagers or staff. The illnesses most frequentlysuffered by the children were reported asheadaches, flu, respiratory problems, stomachupsets, skin diseases and fevers. The firstresponse would normally involve theadministration of medicines that were availablein the institution or were purchased from anearby store. If this failed to restore the childto health, he or she would then be brought tothe local Puskesmas. However, there were alsochildcare institutions that were found to belacking responsiveness to children’s illness, andwould simply wait for the child to recover onhis or her own. If that failed the child wouldnormally be sent home — either brought thereby a staff member or another child— or thechild’s parents would be called. In one of theinstitutions, the managers and staff appearednot to care about whether the children weresick or not. One of the children during a focusgroup discussion said resignedly, “You could dieand they wouldn’t care, Miss!”


page

187

In this particular institution, the childrenwere neither brought to hospital nor to thelocal Puskesmas. On one occasion when a childhad been seriously ill, the other children hadto telephone his parents to bring him home.Another child was found to have been sufferingfor two days from a recurring attack of asthmaat the time of the assessment. When reportedby the assessor and children to the manager,he replied nonchalantly, “He’s always sick withasthma ...”

However, in the end the manager agreedto lend his car so that the child could bebrought to hospital, where he had to undergoinpatient treatment. The children were worriedabout falling sick as they believed themanagement and staff would do little to helpthem. This unease was also voiced by a child ina childcare institution in Central Java: “I don’tlike not being well or being sick here. If I was athome, I could tell my mum and dad. But here, youdon’t like talking about it even to the other children.”It seemed that children in residentialinstitutions could ill afford to fall ill despite thefrequently insufficient nutrition and in somecases poor hygiene situation in the institutions.

The lack of response in some cases bymanagers and staff to illness among the childrenin their care demonstrated a general lack ofconcern for the children’s health. This wasborne out by other aspects, such as the lack offirst-aid kits in some of the institutions andthe fact even where such kits were available,there contents were often deficient, and consistof little more than iodine/betadine, bandages,and headache, stomach and flu medicines. Atreatment or examination room was alsofrequently absent in the private childcareinstitutions. Most of the childcare institutionsalso had no arrangements with the localPuskesmas or a local physician so as to facilitatethe treatment and medication of sick children.Only a few of the institutions, including PamardiUtomo, Muhammadiyah Cilacap, SOS DesaTaruna, Darurrokhmah, Patmos, Prajapati andLohoraung had arrangements with a localphysician or Puskesmas for the provision offree medical services. This is despite the factthat the provision of such services should notbe difficult given the existence of Puskesmas

in every district, and auxiliary health centresin each village/sub-district. In addition bothWoro Wiloso and Darul Hikmah were able tosign up under the Disadvantaged Family HealthInsurance scheme (Asuransi Kesehatan KeluargaMiskin/Askes Gakin), which helped reduce thecost of medication.

On a positive note, however, not only didthe Pamardi Utomo have arrangements for theprovision of healthcare services to the children,it also worked with the local Puskesmas sothat the children could receive guidance onhygiene and health, and to ensure that the mealsprovided by the home satisfied “four healthy,five perfect” requirements.

While children were required in manycases to provide a health certificate uponadmission, their health was not checked againduring the course of their placement, exceptwhen they fell seriously ill. In Dorkas in NorthSulawesi however, medical examinations wereconducted once a year by healthcareprofessionals who visited the institution.According to a number of girls in Patmos inNTB, “they once examined our eyes and checkedour blood types, but we never found out the resultsas they were given to the Manager.”Immunizations were also not provided by thechildcare institutions, let alone conductingchecks on immunizations. Normally, thechildren would have received theirimmunizations prior to entering the childcareinstitution or would receive them at school.This seemed never to be considered part ofthe institution’s role as it was deemed to bethe responsibility of the schools.

Neither did the institutions provide formalhealth education. The promotion of safe andhealthy approaches and behaviour was also notstressed or conducted in a focused manner. Itwas only if a child fell ill that health advice wouldbe provided. In general, the institutions tookthe view that matters concerning bathing,personal care and so forth came naturally anddid not need to be taught in a structuredmanner. Despite the importance of informationon reproductive health to teenagers, this wasnot provided by the childcare institutions. Thechildren from Al Amin received such


page

188

information at school, while the children fromAl Hidayah also received information on healthand the dangers of drugs at school. In Dorkashowever, the institution provided informationto the children on the dangers of drugs andHIV/AIDS and in Eben Haezer, children wereprovided with information on drugs,delinquency and education on the dangers offree sex.

The childcare institutions were found notto maintain health records for each child. Thenormal practice in Indonesia is for such recordsto be maintained by the places where thechildren received treatment, such as thePuskesmas, hospital or doctor’s practice.Usually, these institutions maintain records oneach patient treated, with therecords only being accessible by, andintelligible to, the attending doctor,and the patient only being informedof his immediate illness and themedication or treatment required.Within the residential institutions,however, the only records kept onchildren’s medical history were in theheads of the managers and staff.

Water was found to be a majorproblem in a number of the childcareinstitutions assessed. In Suci Hati inAceh, the water was found to beyellowish in colour and in Nirmala,also in Aceh, the water was also yellow andsmelt bad. In UPRS and Pepabri in WestKalimantan the bathing water was turbid,almost brown or black in colour. In the DarulHikmah in NTB, water was in short supply andhad to be fetched from a well. Even then, itwas malodorous due to contamination by thechildren’s bathing water. Due to the workinvolved, the children were loath to fetch waterand as a result only bathed once a day. InHarapan, since 2001 the institution has facedsome serious water shortages due to the lackof an effective pumping system. The bathroomshave only been able to be used in the morningsand evenings when the water is running andthe tanks in the bathrooms remain empty ofwater for the rest of the day. In Prajapati inNorth Sulawesi, children often had to walk 3km to a hot spring to get washed and wash

their clothes during the dry season as a resultof water shortages in the institution.

The bedrooms in a number of childcareinstitutions were also found to be unhygienic,with stuffiness and dampness being commonproblems. There was often general untidinessand a lack of ventilation, which obviously doesnothing for the health of the children. In Pepabriin West Kalimantan there were on 5 beds in aroom for 8 girls. The small size of the roomalso compounded the problem as it measuredonly 3,5 x 4 m. There was little ventilation andas a result the room smelled bad. While therewas a window, it could not be opened becauseof fear of mosquitoes.

In Hidayatullah in Maluku the institutionwas caring for 63 children (46 boys and 17girls). The girls were sleeping in two smallrooms of about 4 x 4 m and the boys weresleeping in a building with only 4 bedrooms.The space and conditions were no suitable forsuch a big number of children. Children didnot have any individual space assigned to themand would sleep wherever there was a space.Some of the children would end up sleeping inthe middle room which served as a study roomand as a dining room. They generally laid downblankets on the floor or just slept directly onit. In the boys’ rooms too, children wouldusually sleep without beds but with mats onthe floor. There were only 5 wooden beds for46 boys. The place looked dirty as it was notregularly cleaned and a number of animals oftenwent through it, including chicken, cats and even


page

189

goats. One of the girls’ room was very darkand had no ventilation whatsoever. There wereonly 3 wooden beds without mattress to beshared between 17 girls.

In Darul Hikmah in NTB the conditionswere also worrying. In the girl’s barracks, 33girls slept in two rooms on the floor with onlythin mats. 20 boys slept in only two rooms butthey had wooden beds. In Darul Aitam, theconditions were, as explained by a member ofstaff, “The place where the children sleep now, ohmy God, it is damp, they can see the stars throughthe holes in the roof.”

While most managers or staff tended tosay that they were ready to respond to possibleeventualities such as children’s sickness or anatural disaster, a general lack of concern wasin evidence in many of the institutions inrelation to children’s safety and well being. Manyof the managers took the view that it wasnormal for children to fall ill and that theywould get better of their own accord.According to a healthcare worker in EbenHaezer, “These children rarely get sick. It seemsthat they are protected by God. They rarely evenget an upset stomach.” It appears to be thisattitude that led to a lack of responsiveness tothe health needs of children living in residentialinstitutions.

The childcare institutions also often statedthat they were ready and knew how to respondto minor accidents or emergencies. But themajority of childcare institution did not haveany emergency preparedness kits including fireextinguishers, or rubber boats or otheremergency kits to respond to earthquakes,floods or other natural disasters and therewere no strategy or plan devised in case of anemergency.

Education

As expected from the fact that themajority of childcare institutions had madeeducation their primary objective, childrenwere found to enjoy good access to education,as shown by the fact that 98% percent of thechildren in these institutions were attendingelementary school, junior high school or senior

high school. Twelve of the 36 childcareinstitutions assessed actually had their ownschools, whether in the form of a pesantrenor a formal educational establishment.

The educational goals of the childcareinstitutions were achieved primarily throughthe provisional of the financial support thechildren needed for their education inparticular the payment of the children’s schoolfees. Neither the children nor their parentswere expected to contribute to the costs ofeducation of a child placed in the institution asthis was clearly the responsibility of theinstitution. However, the situation wassomewhat different for the children in childcareinstitutions that were associated or attachedto a pesantren. As we saw earlier, in IbnuTaimiyah in West Kalimantan, for example, thechildren from the institution were exempt frompaying the monthly fee of Rp 160,000, forattending the pesantren and received their foodand board, as well as an education. However,in return the children had to donate theirlabour to the pesantren, including serving mealsto the other pesantren students.

The funding required for sending childrenthrough elementary and junior high school wassignificantly reduced in light of theimplementation of the Government’s SchoolOperational Assistance (BOS) scheme whichis meant to eliminate or reduce the costs ofschool fees for children at both levels.Accordingly, the money formerly spent onschool fees tended to be used by theinstitutions to pay for school-related expensesnot covered by the BOS scheme, such as thepurchase of books, extra-curricular activities,and writing requisites and copybooks. Theinstitutions also provided money for thepurchase of school uniforms, bags and shoesbut these were not always provided withenough frequency which meant that, in somecases, children’s schooling could be affected. InSuci Hati in Aceh for example,

“The children also receive uniforms, shoes,and copybooks from the institution once ayear. However, the children say that thissupport is inadequate as a pair of shoescannot be expected to last one year.


page

190

Similarly, only two sets uniforms areinsufficient for a full year. The children alsocomplain that they do not receiveschoolbooks from the institution, and thatthey have to borrow these from theirschoolmates. Accordingly, they have to relyon assistance from their parents as regardsshoes, uniforms and schoolbooks” (interviewwith a child)

The majority of institutions also providedpocket money for snacks and to cover the costof public transportation, where required. Theexact amount of pocket money varied frominstitution to institution. Al Amin, for example,provided Rp 500 (0.05 USD) per studentattending elementary level Islamic school -Madrasah Ibtidaiyah- (paid every day or everytwo days), while children attending junior highschool -Madrasah Tsanawiyah- were given Rp2,000 (0.20 USD) per day. In Nirmala in Aceh,children received Rp 5000 (0.50 USD) per day.Not all of the 36 childcare institutionsautomatically provided pocket money to thechildren in their care. In some cases, thechildren had to work for their pocket money.Pocket money tended to be distributed in themorning each day by the manager and childrenhad to queue to receive it and in the processtake leave to go to school. Children sometimeswould save the money including choosing towalk long distance rather than use localtransport in some cases so that they couldlater use their savings for other needs includingpersonal toiletries or even the trip back hometo visit their families.

While financial support for the children’seducation was provided by all of the childcareinstitutions, support with the actual processof learning was only provided by a small numberof the institutions. Generally children were leftto get on with their studies and progress waschecked on when things were not going wellor for some, on a more regular basis. In someof the institutions children were givenencouragement with their education and themanager and staff checked on children’sprogress.

In Patmos, for example, although themanager in charge of the institution was elderly

and had more than 100 children under her care,the girls said that, “She keeps a check, Miss ...especially on how we’re doing at school, how ourgrades are, if we’re having any problems at school...”

On the other hand, the researchencountered cases where the Manager of theinstitution was more focused on the situationof the institution rather than the child as couldbe seen in one case where the managerexplained, “.. I often meet with the teachers sothat they hear what I have to say. If, for example,a child is held back, doesn’t progress to the nextgrade, I go to the teacher and say, if this childdoesn’t get into the next grade, then I’m going tolose out. So I ask them to just let the child moveup to the next grade.”

Clear period of times were usually set outfor children to do their homework which theytended to do together but generally with littlesupport from staff.

In some of the institutions, no facilitieswere provided for children to study includingrooms for that purpose or tables and chairs.This was the case for example in Al Ikhlas inNTB, Pepabri in West Kalimantan andLohoraung in North Sulawesi. Children in Al-Ikhlas only studied if they had homework todo and they used the main hall to do so. InHidayatullah children had no tables to studyand the children studied in the room forprayers. In Muhammadiah Cilacap in CentralJava, children had to study on the floor of theoffice and in the visitor’s room as there wasno study room and no tables and chairsprovided.

Another problem faced by the childrenwas the late payment of school fees, particularlyin the case of private schools, where thechildren might be told by the school staff toremind the childcare institution to pay. Ingeneral, however, such problems could beovercome by discussions between the childcareinstitution and the school. In Lohoraung inNorth Sulawesi, the manager had faced somedifficulties in paying school fees as thegovernment assistance the institution receivedwas meant to only cover food costs. Theinstitution ended up having to use parts ofthose funds to pay for children’s fees. As this


page

191

was not enough, the manager also started acatering business in the institution to make upfor the shortfall. She also has had to borrowmoney from her friends, in some instances, topay for the children’s fees. Fortunately, someof the children were attending a stateelementary school. As a result, as explained bythe head of that school,

“So, they (two children from the institution)are exempted from school fees. They alsoget their books from the school, paid for outof BOS funds for poor children. The schoolalso has a program for providing poorchildren with uniforms. There school feesare also taken care of.”

In the private schools which wereattended by other children, BOS was alsoreceived and used to reduce the school feesbut not to the same extent and the institutionstill ended up paying for some of the fees.

The picket system (performance ofcompulsory chores in the childcare institution)could also cause problems for children withtheir schoolwork and attendance. A numberof children living in an institution in Maluku,which had a school attached, revealed that theywould frequently be summoned from class toperform their chores if they were on picketduty. According to one teacher, a majorproblem was the late arrival of the childrenfor school or their failure to turn up due totheir roistered for picket duty, “It’s difficult forthe children here. They often don’t turn up, or aresummoned from class to do this or that.”

While on the one hand children who studywithin the institution do not have to travelgreat distance to school, they also lose thecrucial opportunity to socialize outside anddevelop support network with other childrenand adults outside of the institutions. On theother hand, children who attend school outsideof the institutions were found in some casesto travel great distance everyday to attendschool and in many cases the lack of money ortransport from the institution to school,particularly to senior high schools which arefar fewer in numbers, meant that children hadto walk or find ways to get across considerable

distance to their school. In the case of EbenHaezer in West Kalimantan for example,

“High school, SMEA and STM schools arelocated even further away, with the childrenhaving to cycle to the main road and thentake a public minibus. A one-way trip on theminibus, so that the children need Rp2,000 each day for going to school.However, this is not provided by theinstitution so that the children have to workto raise their minibus fares. Normally theboys do this by working in the citrus grovesowned by the village head, who is also thefounder of the institution, or the plantationsowned by the head of the institution andother staff. As for the girls, they washclothes for (the founder)’s family.”

In Hidayatullah in Liang, children were alsonot provided with money to pay for transportor pocket money. This is despite the fact thatthe Junior and Senior High Schools werelocated about 3 km from the institution and itmeant children have a 40 mins walk everydayto school and again back. If children had a littlespare money they tried to hire a local bikerider at a cost of IDR 2000 (0.2 USD) eachway.

The fact that the children have so muchto do in the institutions where they reside andthat they rarely get support with their homework or studies, may partly explain why notmany of them excel at school. While a few ofthe children in the institutions were found atthe top of their class, the research found thatgenerally children were performing in anaverage way or even poorly at school and somefailed their examinations.

The children who lived in childcareinstitutions that were associated or linked withpesantren or other Islamic educationalestablishments (madrasah) were automaticallyenrolled in the education programs providedby the organizations running the pesantren ormadrasah. Six of the childcare institutionsstudied were associated or linked withpesantren, namely, Darul Ulum, Darul Hikmah,Darul Aitam, Ibnu Taimiyah, Al Muthadien, andHidayatullah, while 3 other childcareinstitutions were also involved in educational


page

192

activities, two of which were involved in Islamiceducation: Muhammadiyah Lhoksemawe andNurul Iklhas, while the third, Dharma Laksana,was a Hindu educational establishment.

In other childcare institutions, the childrenwere allowed to choose where they wantedto go to school, although this choice was notentirely free as it was ultimately up to themanagers to decide which type of school theywould attend. Some institutions selected theschools themselves, normally based on cost ordistance considerations, or the child’s abilities.In Patmos, for example, the girls said that theschools they attended were the ones they hadselected, “We can attend whatever school we want,Miss, depending on our grades ...”. However, newchildren of junior high school-age werefrequently sent, if their grades were goodenough, to Junior High School No. 9 as it wasnearby.

Even if the children successfully managedto graduate from high school, another concernfor the institutions was whether they wouldbe able to secure gainful employment uponleaving the institution. In order to prepare thechildren for employment, many were directedtowards vocational school (SMK) instead ofhigh school as the latter was often perceivedas being more suited to children who intendedto go on to college. It was assumed that bysending children to vocational school, theywould be taught the skills they needed so asto secure jobs immediately after graduation.The children normally concurred with this. Asone child said, “You can get a job quicker.”According to this child, upon graduating fromthe administrative and office management

technical school (SMEA), hewould be able to immediately findan office job, or become a salesperson in a big store. “Later, I’ll beable to get a job in a mall.” Similarviews were expressed by otherchildren attending this vocationalschool. Besides this, technologicalvocational schools (STM) werealso found to be very popularamong the boys as graduatingfrom such a school made it easierto find work, such as in an auto

repair workshop or as a driver.

In a few instances, children wereencouraged and even supported towardstertiary level education. In SOS Desa Taruna,Dorkas, and Prajapati, children had theopportunity to progress to higher education.This was not the case, however in the otherinstitutions, although as we saw above, in a fewcases some of the institutions were helpingchildren who had performed particularly wellat school to find donators to finance theiruniversity education. In a few cases, they wouldenable those children to even continue to stayin the institution. In Patmos for example, thechildren were free to continue their education,and the manager provided support and adviceto them. Three children were attending collegeand were allowed to continue living in theinstitution, although they had to pay their ownway through college.

Generally though this was not an optionprovided to children, both as a result of lackof funding and the institutions’ focus onchildren up to senior high school level. As onechild said, “We want to go to university ... but whatcan we do ... we’re only in the home for a limitedtime.”

Besides facilitating children to attendschool, a total of 13 of the 36 institutions hadprovided some sort of vocational and life skillstraining to the children. Five of these were inCentral Java, three in West Kalimantan, two inMaluku and one each in Aceh, NTB and NorthSulawesi. The number of children receivingvocational and life skills training amounted to543. Among the skills taught in these childcare


page

193

institutions were concrete block making (176children), computer skills (92 children), sewing(87 children), traditional dancing (69 children),handicrafts (50 children), motorcycle repair (16children), music (14 children), auto repair (7children), landscape gardening (7 children),livestock husbandry (6 children), driving (5children), beautician skills (5 children) andsinging (5 children). Clearly, a great variety ofskills were taught with the stated aim tosupport children in gaining future employment.

Motorcycle repair, auto repair, music,livestock husbandry, and landscape gardeningcourses were only provided for boys, while thebeautician courses were only taken by girls.This revealed prevalent gender stereotyping

in many of the vocational trainings run by bothprivate and Government institutions. Girlswould almost never been given the opportunityto learn mechanics or to take a motorcycle orauto repair course. Boys on the other handwould rarely been given an opportunity to takebeautician or sewing courses (of the 87children taking sewing courses, only 9 wereboys). This did not always seem to be the casehowever. In Darul Aitam in NTB, it was foundthat all of the children (except for children of6 years of age) were trained to make pavingand concrete blocks, and were involved inreadying the sand and cement, mixing it andthen pouring it into the moulds. This training,which obviously involved a great deal of

exertion, was provided as part of theconstruction work at Darul Aitam and wasregarded as a contribution by the children tothe childcare institution and the pesantren.

Some of these vocational training schemeswere found to be very ad hoc in nature and insome cases had operated for only for shortperiods of time reaching small numbers ofchildren before being abandoned. Others wereclearly linked to providing to the needs of theinstitution including its building work orlivelihood schemes including livestock raisingwhile at the same time being seen by theinstitution as serving to teach children life skills.

As with other children, children living inresidential care also frequently experienceproblems at school. Some of the most frequentproblems encountered were playing truant,fighting with schoolmates, and difficulties withhomework. The use of physical punishment byteachers and bullying or taunting by otherchildren at school was also frequentlymentioned in this context. (See section IX onchild protection issues).

With regard to unexplained absences fromschool, these elicited a variety of responses,depending on the childcare institution involved.In Patmos, for example, the child concernedwould normally be summoned by the head:“(the Head) normally summons the child and giveshim a warning and advice.” In MuhammadiyahMeulaboh, a child who was found out to havemissed class without permission would notonly be given a warning, but, as the childrenrevealed, “If you played truant ... you’d get slapped....You also get slapped for fighting ...”

The children from Caleb House in Malukuexperienced similar problems. Children whofrequently played truant said that it was oftenin order to avoid a teacher who wasparticularly hard and who liked to hit. Somechildren also they did not like the English class,“Because it is hard…I don’t like the teacher...he’sbad ... he often hits...” Staff at the institutionsgenerally did not believe the reasons given bythe children because some of children weredeemed to be playing truant too often. Thestaff also said that they had an agreement withthe teachers, particularly those at elementary


page

194

and senior school levels. If something a problemoccurs with one of the child from theinstitution at school, they would be calledstraight away to the school. Other children alsoadmitted to rarely doing their homeworkbecause of laziness. Another problemmentioned by children about school was thefighting which often occurred at school withother children. As one child explained aboutwhy he hit another child who apparently hadannoyed him, “He tried to wipe my face… withthe eraser…So I hit him.”

Play and Recreation

Children’s days in the institutions usuallybegan early and finished late. In fact, the

research found that on average children weregetting little sleep with nights averaging 5 to 6hours. While children were usually able to napsometimes during the day, their days werefound to be very packed. In general, it was foundthat most of the children’s time was taken upwith school, doing their daily chores in theinstitution, working for the institution, religiouspractices and finally sleeping. Accordingly, theyhad little time left for play and recreation.Normally, the only free time they had was afterreturning from school and lunch, or afterbathing and the evening meal, or at night. Duringthese times, the children would normally chatwith their friends, or just sit out watchingpassers-by. The following two examples givesome insight into children’s daily activities.

Source: Discussions with the children

Eben Haezer (West Kalimantan): Daily schedule of activities

TIME

02.00 - 04.15

04.00

04.30 – 04.45

04.45 - 06.00

06.00 – 12.30

12.30 – 14.00

14.00 – 17.00

17.00 – 18.00

18.00 – 21.00

21.00 – 22.00

Activity

Get up, work in the kitchen

Get up

Morning prayer

Bathing, breakfast

School

Lunch, rest

Rest

Bathing,dinner, evening prayer.

Study

Retire to rooms, chat with friends,sleep

Description

For the children assigned tomorning cooking duty

All children

In the hall, all the childrenparticipate

Some of the children runaround, play volleyball, theyounger children scuffle withone another

For the children attendingmorning classes

Some of the children go to theplantations, to the forest, play inthe yard or retire to theirrooms

Some of the children sleep,some play in the yard, somewater the flowers

All the children

After evening reflection, all ofthe children study in the sameroom

All children


page

195

A number of the childcare institutions hadplaying fields and sports or artistic/musicalequipment, and allocated special periods forsport or artistic pursuits in the afternoon oron Sundays and holidays. Among the sports orgames on offer were, for example, soccer,volleyball, table tennis, kasti (game similar tobaseball), sepak takra (type of ball game),badminton and chess. None of the childcareinstitutions possessed facilities for all of theseactivities. In fact, of the 36 childcare institutionssurveyed, only 12 actually possessed sportsfacilities (33%). Only 7 of the childcareinstitutions (19%) provided musicalinstruments for the children, includingtambourines, guitars and violins, with the exactinstruments available varying from institutionto institution. In many cases, the institutionshad the facilities but the equipment was alreadybroken or worn out and had not been replaced.

In general, Government institutions hadbetter sports and artistic/musical equipment

and facilities than the private ones. UPRS , forexample, offered the children volleyball,badminton, chess, table tennis and soccer. Theboys availed of these facilities at 4 p.m. eachday following their afternoon naps afterreturning from school. The girls normally onlywatched, although some of them alsoparticipated. The limited number of childcareinstitutions offering sports and artistic/musicalfacilities highlighted the fact that play andrecreation were not considered important forthe children.

The time available to children for sportingor cultural pursuits was even further restrictedin those childcare institutions that prohibitedthe children from watching TV or playingoutside the institution. In the Eben Haezerchildcare institution, for example, thosechildren who attended high school in theafternoon, besides having to perform routinetasks like cooking, and cleaning the rooms andyard, also worked in the plantations owned by

Hidayatullah: Daily Schedule of Activities

No. TIME ACTIVITY

1 03.00 Get up for ‘lail’ prayers

2 03.30 After ‘lail’ prayers, back to bed

3 04.30 Get up for ‘subuh’ prayers

4 06.00 Cleaning (sweeping the rooms and yard)

5 06.30 Bathing and getting ready for school

6 07.00 Breakfast and departure for school

7 12.30 Return home from school

8 13.00 ‘Dzuhur’ prayers

9 14.00 Lunch and rest

10 15.30 ‘Asar’ prayers

11 16.00 Religious studies (reading Koran)

12 16.30 Afternoon cleanup (sweeping yard)

13 18.30 ‘Magrib’ prayers followed by religious studies until time for ‘isa’ prayers

14 20.00 Dinner

15 20.30 Study

16 21.30 Sleep

Source: Discussions with the children


page

196

the head of the institution from 7 a.m. to 11a.m., for which they were paid Rp 20,000 perweek. The same applied in Darul Aitam, wherechildren were required to make paving andconcrete blocks for the extension of the home.Unlike the children in these two institutions,the children in other institutions, such as IbnuTaimiyah, were allowed to take a nap in theafternoon until 3 p.m. after returning fromschool. In Pepabri, the children were allowedto watch TV, while in Nur Ilahi they wereallowed to play tambourine and watch TV allday on Sunday. In all of the six institutionsurveyed in NTB, the children were alsoallowed to take a nap in the afternoon andwere free to spend their free time as theypleased.

The fact that a number of the childcareinstitutions allocated very little time for playand recreation appeared in somecases to be based on a belief thatthese were of no benefit, and onlyserved to waste time or “spoiled”the children. According to aformer member of staff at aninstitution in Aceh:

“The children in care arespoiled. Everything they needis provided for them,especially the food. All theyhave to do is eat. They’respoilt with food. Children haveto learn how to take care ofthemselves, they need to betrained. All these children do is go to school,sleep, play, no work out of the ordinary. Thisonly kills the children.”

The lack of freedom to play may also beseen from the comments of the children. Oneboy in Muhammadiyah Meulaboh in Aceh said:“It’s really boring, Miss. In the afternoon, we’re notallowed out. We have to work.” A girl in the sameinstitution voiced her feelings as follows: “It’slike being in prison. We’re not allowed out ... wejust shout out “hello” to passers-by.” In fact in thatinstitution, girls are not allowed out after dark(around 6 pm) and are only allowed out duringthe week from Monday to Friday whenaccompanied by another girl. Boys, on the

other hand, are allowed out everyday and until10 pm.

Children were usually not allowed outexcept to go to school or to carry out somereligious activities or other activities requiredby the institution such as searching for woodor going to bathe in the local river. Childrenwere also required to go back to the institutionstraight from school and they would bepunished if they came back late. Most of theinstitutions prohibited children from going outin the evenings. Where such prohibitions werein place, children would have to find ways toget around them on various grounds, as wasthe case with one girl who was participating inextracurricular activities at school and wasforced to lie as the staff in the institution wouldnot believe her.

As we saw earlier, carrying on relationshipswith the opposite sex was the thing that wasmost frowned upon in all of the childcareinstitutions studied. While institution managerswere aware that strong attraction to theopposite sex started during the teenage years,they took the view that such relationshipsinterfered with study and had the potential toendanger children who may engage in pre-marital sex. The sanctions against those foundguilty of engaging in relationships with theopposite sex were found to be severe andtherefore children’s time often found to betightly restricted outside of the school timesand children were not provided with time tohang out.


page

197

Viewing TV was usually subject torestrictions in childcare institutions. In somecases, the children were only allowed to do soon Saturday evening or Sunday. On other days,they were required to study. The TV sets alsotended to be located in the house or thelodging of the staff and managers and sochildren would only be able to watch TV whenthose staff agreed.

Recreational activities outside of theinstitutions were found to be rarely providedto the children by the institutions. Thosechildcare institutions that were able to organizesuch activities did so only once or twice a year.This was found to be the case even thoughsome of the institutions were located withinor near areas where recreation could easilybe accessed including beaches, mountains orparks. In Dharma Laksana in NTB, for example,children were at most given once a year theopportunity to go to the beach even thoughthe institution itself is located on the coast ofLombok.

Al Mutadien in North Sulawesi on theother hand provided recreation twice a yearduring the school holidays to the beach or thelocal Marine Park, the local hills or the zoo.Such activities were greatly enjoyed by thechildren as they were able to enjoy nature andwere freed for a while from the routine anddrudgery of institutional life.

In Prajapati, children were found to actuallyenjoy the long walk to the hot spring duringthe dry season to get bathed or wash clothesas it meant being able to enjoy the worldoutside and the landscape of north Sulawesi.In Eben Haezer as in a number of otherinstitutions, looking for wood for fuel was seenby children as an opportunity to enjoy nature,find fruits to be eaten and spend somerecreational time together outside of the oncea year event organised by the institution.

Some childcare institutions however neverorganized such activities as was found to bethe case in Suci Hati and Darul Ulum in Aceh,Ibnu Taimiyah in West Kalimantan, Lohauraungin North Sulawesi, Muhammadiyah Cilacap inCentral Java or Huke Ina in Maluku forexample.

Children’s work

All of the children living in the childcareinstitutions were required to work. This workcovered everything involved in the running ofthe institutions, apart from officeadministration. The work was carried out basedon what was referred to as the “picket system”,where the children were formed into boys’and girls’ teams. The operation of the picketsystem was described as follows by a child fromLohoraung:

“So, when it comes to our turn, Mama (thehead of the institution) assigns chores to us.Normally, the chores are different every day.For example, on Monday I might becleaning the kitchen. Other kids arecleaning the yard. Then on Tuesday, it is myturn to clean the yard. That’s the way itworks.”

The requirement to work was a non-negotiable one (otherwise the operation of thechildcare institutions would be interfered with– the children would not eat and theinstitutions would not be cleaned). However,the picket system also meant that the childrenneeded to always be able to juggle doing thechores, attending to the everyday religiouspractice while also attending to school andtheir school work. As the children from NurulIkhlas explained, they found themselves in adilemma: if they did not do their picket chores,they would be scolded, and if they did do theirchores, their schooling would be disrupted.

It was clear from the research that thefact that these childcare institutions had beenable to grow and develop was due primarilyto the fact that a lot of the work of theinstitution was actually carried out by thechildren themselves. The lack of adult staff inthe great majority of these institutions meantthat children’s labour was being relied on as akey part of the operation of the institution.And children’s labour meant in reverse thatthe institutions did not feel the need to recruitsufficient staff to operate and maintain theirfacilities. Children in these institutions neededto be both strong and resilient and theinstitutions’ practice of only recruiting thosewho were already able to look after themselves


page

198

made that clear. As stated by the manager ofone childcare institution in NTB, “All types ofwork – if the children are capable of doing it makethem do it!”

In a number of the childcare institutions,little distinction was made between the workcarried out by boys or girls. Firewood wouldbe collected by both and boys were alsoinvolved in the cooking. However, in themajority there were clear gender distinctionsmade in the allocation of the work. Accordingto the female institution manager inMuhammadiah Meulaboh in Aceh, “As they’regirls, they will become housewives and they willhave to be able to do the housework.”

In Al Amin in West Kalimantan, choreswere also allocated based on gender. In adiscussion with the girls, the situation wasdescribed as follows, “For the girls, they areassigned to cooking duties in the kitchen, and thencleaning up the rooms. Everything is scheduled.The picket schedule is drawn up by Miss Sri (staff).”In addition, the girls also were involved inbuying the food at the market. Meanwhile, asregards the work performed by the boys, thechildren had this to say, “The boys have to mopand sweep the floor, throw out the rubbish, andclean the bathrooms and toilets in line with thepicket schedule, except for the small children. Theydon’t have to do picket duty. Only the older children,from grade 4 in elementary school onwards (9years old). The older children also have to washtheir own clothes, while the small children’s’ clothesare washed by T (an older girl in the institution).”

Among the various types ofwork and chores performed bychildren in residential care werethe following:

l Own needs: washing andironing clothes. The clothesof the smaller children wereusually washed by the olderchildren.

l Preparing meals: collectingand chopping up firewoodfor cooking, purchasingingredients for cooking,washing rice, fetching water,

cleaning and cutting up the food that is tobe cooked, laying the table, doing thewashing up and putting away utensils.

l Cleaning: sweeping and/or mopping thefloors, cleaning the bedrooms, kitchen,bathrooms, toilets and other rooms.

l Cleaning up around the institution:removing garbage, sweeping the yard andpathways within the complex, cutting thegrass, cleaning up other areas, watering theplants and vegetable plots.

According to the managers, these choreswere set for the children as a form of educationso that they would become used to doing them,as the skills would be important for them inthe future. It was clear however, that theinstitutions would simply not be able to runwithout children carrying out this work dueto the lack of staff in most institutions. Childrenwere generally not supplementing the workof adult staff but actually carrying it out insteadof adult staff in most cases, indicating that thiswork related more to the needs of theinstitutions than the needs of the children.

Beyond having to contribute to the dayto day running of the institutions the childrenwere also given tasks in some cases which wereclearly done to further the work of theinstitution rather than to be educational innature. In that regard, the work required ofchildren in a number of childcare institutions


page

199

could in no way be characterized as usual.Among these types of work, ranging from thelightest to the heaviest (besides the types ofwork described above), were the following:

l Cooking for the pesantren children: Thiswas required of the children living in IbnuTamiyah. This institution housed bothchildren in care and pesantren students.In return for receiving assistance, food andeducation from the pesantren, the childrenin care were required to cook for thepesantren students. This was stated duringa discussion with the children: “The childrenin the institution work every afternoon for thepesantren children – the boys cook the rice,while the girls cook the vegetables.” Besidescooking for the pesantren children, thoseon duty were also required to cook forthe head of the pesantren’s household andto clean and mop the floors in that house.These duties were not required of fee-paying pesantren students.

l Assisting with the institutions’ smallbusiness schemes: In Lohoraung forexample, the catering and cake businesswas one of the ways in which the childcareinstitution sought to raise funds (the headof the institution was an expert caterer).Cakes were normally ordered to celebratefestivals, such as Christmas or Lebaran,while the catering business was busiest atthe weekend. Both girls and boys wererequired to work once a month uponcoming back from school, and would bepaid between Rp. 15,000 and Rp. 20,000(around 1.5 to 2 USD) for their labour,which they then used as pocket money.The children from MuhammadiyahMeulaboh in Aceh also worked as guardsfor the water refill enterprise managed bythe Muhammadiyah Foundation, andreceive remuneration for their work.

l Minding the children of staff: The childrenliving in the Huke Ina childcare institutionwere required to look after the childrenof the families with which they lived. Basedon the observations of the assessor, thechildren were required to tidy bedrooms,clean the bathrooms, wash dishes and

clean the yards of their care families. Someof the children were also required to lookafter the children of their carers, includingfeeding and bathing them. Some of thechildren appeared to be responsible full-time for looking after the children of theircarers.

l Helping donor families during Lebaran(Idul Fitri): this was required for exampleof children in Nur Ilahi in West Kalimantan.The childcare institution would send thechildren to work as domestics with donorfamilies over the Idul Fitri season. The termused was “lending” the children to thedonors. In such circumstances, the childrenwould not return home for Idul Fitri, butwould instead work 3 or 4 days for adonor family. In return they would be paidwages. One child had this to say: “We can’tstand working with donor families duringLebaran... you know, their children are different... it’s much nicer in the institution.”

l Working as domestic in the houses of staffor doing washing for members of thesurrounding communities. In Eben Haezersome of the girls were taking in the laundryof the neighbours in order to be able toget some pocket money to pay forpersonal needs. “One woman, X, normallyhas washing to be done. She is a relative ofone of the staff. Her house used to be nearthe institution, but now she has moved andlives quite far away. A1 (child) collects thewashing from X’s house on her bicycle. Shedoes the washing twice a week in the morningbefore going to school as she attends classesin the afternoon, and is paid between Rp15,000 and Rp 20,000 per week. She usesthe money to buy sanitary napkins and otherpersonal requisites.”(interview with a girl, 18years old)

l Providing one year, often unpaid, serviceafter graduation from high school. Thisrequirement was applied by some of thechildcare institutions that were alsopesantren like Hidayatullah, Al Mutadhienand Ibnu Tamiyah. Upon graduation fromMadrasah Aliyah (equivalent of highschool), the children were required to


page

200

serve for a year in the childcare institution,depending on their skills. This wasexplained by the head of Ibnu Taimyiah asfollows: “Upon graduation, the children arerequired to work in the institution for a yearby teaching or helping the institution in someother way, like taking care of the kitchen.”This model is frequently applied bypesantren, and involves the childrenserving as teachers or supervisors duringreligious activities, taking care of youngerchildren or working in the kitchen.According to one of the organisation’sstaff, if a child refused to perform suchservices, he or she would not be giventheir graduation certificate. It was statedthat this internal policy was designed topromote selfless service, improve the skillsof the children, better equip the childrento live in society, and to empower thechildren.

l Fund-raising: Boys were required toparticipate in fund-raising activities in theAl Muthadien institution. They wererequired to collect “infak”, “sedekah” and“zakat” funds during Ramadan so as to payfor breaking-the-fast meals and thedistribution of alms to the destitute. Theymight also be required to collect funds inother months if something special wasplanned. The funds were collected on adoor-to-door basis and were then countedby a staff member and distributed to thedestitute around the mosque. Each boycould collect between Rp 600,000 (USD60) and one million per month (USD 100),and received 13 percent of the funds hecollected. The money was used topurchase clothes, books and to makeimportant photocopies. Fund raising is oneof the methods employed by Al Muthadiento mould its cadres.

l Building work for the institution: Thisoccurred in a number of institutionsincluding Nurul Ikhlas, Hidayatullah, CalebHouse and Al Ikhlas. As part of this work,the children would paint roof tiles, walls,carry bricks and sand etc, so as to reducethe cost of the building work, as well asexpedite it. In Al Ikhlas no special schedule

was arranged for this work, and it wascarried out en masse. According to thehead of the childcare institution: “Thechildren are helping during the building stageby painting the roof tiles.”

l Making concrete and paving blocks, layingout garden, erecting fence: These forms ofheavy work were required of the childrenat the Darul Aitam home. Almost all ofthe children were involved in makingpaving and concrete blocks. The workconsisted of readying the sand and cement,mixing it, and then pouring it into moulds.As revealed by one of the managers, thegardens in the institution grounds had alsobeen dug and laid out, and a low fenceerected by the children. The obligation towork applied to both boys and girls, andalso during Ramadan, with the girls beingrequired to make concrete blocks. Eachroom, which housed four children, wasrequired to produce 100 concrete blocksper night. The work continued all night longduring Ramadan, from Tarawih prayers untilthe dawn meal. As a result, the childrenwere virtually deprived of sleep during thenight. Instead, they slept during the day asschool was out for the duration of thefasting month. The blocks that theyproduced were not sold but rather usedto construct the walls of the childcareinstitution. The outer walls of the homewere all constructed from concrete blocks,with these all being made by the children.A number of the children objected tohaving to do this kind of work, but othersregarded it as part of their duty to theirteachers and the pesantren. In fact, theysaid they felt honoured to be involved inthe work, even though they were deprivedof sleep for most of the night. Theyregarded this as part of their religiousdevotions, which, in the case of the workcarried out in Ramadan, would bring abouteven greater blessings for them.

l Working in citrus groves: This work wascarried out by children at the Eben Haezerhome. High school children who attendedschool in the afternoon worked in thegrove on Saturdays, which was owned by


page

201

the head of the institution,from 7 a.m. until 11 a.m., andreceived Rp 20,000 (around2 USD) for their labour. Thework carried out consisted ofpruning the fruit trees, pickingthe fruit and keeping the grassdown. The citrus grove had anarea of some 2 hectares.Sometimes work in the grovewas also used as a form ofpunishment for the children.Nevertheless, the institutionmanagement took the viewthat this was a form ofrecreation and a good way offilling in the children’s sparetime. The work was performed by bothgirls and boys. As the head of the institutionsaid: “All, both boys and girls, are the samewhen it comes to work, although the girls onlyprune the trees. They don’t have to do anyhoeing. It’s only the boys who do this.” Healso said: “Yes, we often involve the childrenin light work, like cleaning the house, dorms,cooking. They can also do heavier work oncea week, like working in the citrus grove,collecting firewood normally on a Tuesday ...bringing vegetables home so they can sellthem to the neighbours or managers ... theydo these things so as to get more pocketmoney.” The older boys also helped to clearthe undergrowth and weeds in the staff ’scitrus groves for Rp 5,000 per visit.

In many cases children saw this work ascrucial in order to get the pocket money theyneeded to be able to meet certain personalneeds not provided by the institutions, includingtoiletries, snacks and paying for transport coststo school or to their home for the holidays.This also provided them with some degree ofautonomy as they would not be totallydependent on whatever they were given bythe institution. In other cases, children saw thiswork as their contribution to the institutionin return for the services provided or had beentaught to think of this work as part of theirreligious duties.

Based on the above description, it is clearthat many of the childcare institutions were

not solely concerned with the care andeducation of the children. Child’s work was infact a key requirement not only for theoperation of the institution but also for thechild being allowed to stay in the institution.The main sanction for a child who refused towork was being expelled from the childcareinstitution. While the work was often referredto as ‘educational’ in nature or ‘light work’, inreality some of the tasks performed by childrenwere not conforming to Indonesian andinternational law on child labour. A number ofthe tasks performed could, in fact, becategorized as among the worst forms of childlabour under Presidential Decree Number 59of 2002 (on the worst forms of child labour),such as working as domestics or carrying outheavy work, such as making concrete blocksand carrying building materials.

While all of the childcare institutions gavetheir own reasons for involving children inwork, such as providing them with vocationaltraining and life skills, ensuring the childrencontribute to the institution and feel like theyare participating in the aims and mission ofthe institution, nevertheless, the circumstancesdescribed above reveal a lack of compatibilitybetween the objectives of childcare institutionsand the use of child labour to advance theinterests of these institutions. Childcareinstitutions are supposed to be professionalservices providing care and protection toparticularly vulnerable children includingneglected and abandoned children and these


page

202

institutions should not be operating on thebasis of children’s work.

Privacy

Few of the children had heard of theconcept of privacy. In fact, when it wasexplained by the assessors, many of the childrenfirst took the view that it was not somethingthat was important or necessary. This attitudeseemed closely connected with the communalnature of their lives in residential institutions,and the collective approach taken by those whocare for them who generally did not seephysical or personal privacy as important. Twoboys at in Al Ummah home stated for example,“Everybody must be treated the same, Miss.Anyway, we don’t have anything (property) that’simportant or valuable ...”.

A similar sentiment was expressed moreforcibly by a child during a discussion inHidayatullah “We’re all members of a religiouscommunity here. It’s only when you’re in the gravethat privacy comes into effect.”

Communal pressure was found to bestrong, especially in those childcare institutionsthat attempted to mould cadres to work fortheir parent organizations. Here, everythingwas done together so that there was littleroom for privacy. According to one of the girlsat the Suci Hati institution, “it doesn’t get a lotof attention ... because we do everything togetherhere ...”.

However, other children had anunderstanding of privacy. As was stated by onechild in Al Ikhlas, “Privacy is something special foryourself.” According to another child, “Privacy issomething that can’t be shared with other people,”and “Privacy is something that you can’t tell toanyone else.” A boy from Darul Hikmah alsomade the following statement, “Well, there’s noprivacy here. Whatever one child does, all of theothers will know. Like me, I’ve got a girlfriend inthe girls’ dormitor y. Everyone knows . It ’sembarrassing sometimes ...”. Pressure toconform, the crowded conditions in thechildcare institutions, and the rules, includingthe prohibition on relationships with the

opposite sex, all combined to reduce the levelof privacy enjoyed by the children.

The opinions expressed by thechildren in this regard were closely connectedto the views on privacy of the institutions’managers. A few managers saw privacy as beingconnected to providing children with somepersonal space, such as the provision ofindividual closets, rooms and lockable toilets/bathrooms. However, most managers and staffsaw privacy as a lesser need for children thanproviding them with food and education. Forexample, the manager of the Suci Hati homesaid, “We don’t pay a lot of attention to thechildren’s privacy. For us, the most important thingis their education.”

Another reason for the lack of attentionto privacy was advanced by the head of AlUmmah:

“As the children are young, there is nothingthat has to be kept secret. I would love toprovide them with facilities that are capableof giving them privacy but, we can’t due toa lack of money. However, even thoughthere is no door on the entrance to the girls’rooms, they are still safe. This is because thegirls are in a different building to the boys,and the boys aren’t allowed to enter theirrooms.”

Concepts of privacy as understood by staffin the institutions tended to relate mainly toensuring physical separation between boys andgirls and in some institutions actually providingchildren with individual closets for theirpersonal belongings and clothes or imposingstrong sanctions on Peeping Toms andprohibiting more than one person from bathingtogether.

In the Islam-based childcare institutions,boys were habitually separated from girls underthe rules on “muhrim”. 3 In Al Muthadien, forexample, the girls and the boys’ dormitorieswere separate and in Hidayatullah Liang andMuhammadiyah Meulaboh there were strictseparation between the sexes.

The lack of a private physical space wasparticularly acute in institutions that useddormitories or where high numbers of children


page

203

were crowded in a room. While it is commonin Indonesia for children and families to oftenlive within very confined physical spaces andsharing a bed, in many cases, is seen as normaland even desirable, in the context of thechildcare institutions, having to share a bed ora mattress with two or even more childrenmeant that these children really did not have aspace to call their own. In at least 14 institutionschildren had to share beds. Generally thismeant two children sharing one bed. InHidayatullah the situation was particularly badwith only 5 beds for 46 boys and 3 beds for 17girls. This meant that many of the children hadto share beds but also that many ended upsleeping on the floor. This situation was quitesimilar in Nurul Ikhlas where there were only8 beds for 57 boys and 7 beds for 44 girls. Onthe other hand, in institutions where childrenwere provided with bedrooms to be sharedby only a few children, the situation tended tobe better in terms of physical privacy and inthose cases children were generally able tomake the space their own by putting up postersor personal items.

In Caleb House, for example, children hadbeen able to make their bedrooms morepersonal,

“Posters or photos are put up on the wallsabove their beds by the children. The girls’rooms appear neater and have much morein the way of decoration than the boys’rooms, which are quite untidy as tables andclothes are placed on the beds, althoughtheir rooms are not dirty. In the girls’ rooms,the decorative elements include flowers on

the study desks, and paperdecorations hanging from theroofs.”

Most institutions providedsome lockers or cupboardfacilities for children, generally tobe shared between two, or up tofour or five children. In most ofthe childcare institutions, evenwhere cupboards were provided,they frequently could not belocked. The situation was worsein those childcare institutionswhere the children did not have

any closets at all, but only cardboard boxes forthe storage of clothes and other belongings. InAl Ummah in Aceh, children used cardboardboxes to put their clothes in and only one childhad a cupboard that he had brought fromhome. In Darul Ulum Munawarrah in Aceh,children had also brought cupboards from theirhomes or bought one with their own pocketmoney. In Darul Hikmah the cupboards hadno doors and were shared communally bychildren. Children in Dr. J. Lukas in explainedthat they did not want to put private itemssuch as letters in their cupboards as thesecould not be locked up and they were worriedthat their foster parents or other childrenwould read them or use their personalbelongings.

Even in institutions which provided somefacilities for children to keep personal itemshowever, the practice of ‘surprise’ searches(referred to as ‘razzia’) conducted by staff onthe belongings of the children demonstrated aclear lack of concern for privacy.. Such searcheswere quite common and were aimed primarilyto check on children’s conduct to ensure theydid not violate the rules of the institutions asexplained for example by the head of EbenHaezer in West Kalimantan,

“Sometimes we search the closets of thechildren. But we only confiscateinappropriate things, like skimpy clothes,love letters, things like that. If we findskimpy clothes, we sometimes order thestitching to be ripped open. We once founda love letter. We’ve still got it, it’s with one ofthe staff. The boyfriend wasn’t from here.


page

204

We summoned the girl and gave her atalking to, but we did it in private, not infront of the other children.”

Similar searches were carried out in SOSDesa Taruna. While the children had their ownlockable closets, some of the children said thatthey were not brave enough to keep a diary asit might be read by the female staff, somethingthat had happened before. According to thechildren, the foster mothers liked to pry intothe children’s personal affairs. This wascorroborated by one of them, “... sometimes Ilike the check the children’s closets to find out iftheir keeping anything they shouldn’t have, likecigarettes, love letters, or similar kinds of things.”If a child was found to have somethingprohibited in her closet, then she would bereprimanded and the offending item seized.Those children who had there own closetswere among the lucky ones, even though thestaff had access to a master key.

In Sayap Kasih, the childcare institutionscaring for children with disabilities, children’sown clothes were made to be shared betweenall of the children and in one case, a boy gotquite upset that he could not keep the clothesgiven to him by his grandmother. While theaim was clearly to encourage sharing andcommunal living, not allowing children to keeptheir own clothes may well unnecessarilyundermine their sense of individuality andprivacy.

The conditions regarding bathrooms andtoilets also highlighted the diversearrangements that had an impact on children’sprivacy. The situation was found to be best inthose childcare institutions that applied thecottage model as each cottage had its ownbathroom and toilet that could only be usedby the residents of the cottage, and wouldgenerally be well-maintained and locked. In theSOS Desa Taruna, for example, one cottage hadtwo bathrooms and two toilets for a maximumof 12 children. In institutions not based on acottage system, toilets and bathrooms weregenerally shared between many more childrenand often could not be locked. In someinstitutions, bathing and going to the toilet wascarried out in the open at public water sources,

such as a river. In Eben Haezer, for example,the children bathed at two wells locatedapproximately 50 and 100 meters from theinstitution respectively. The well used by thegirls was located near a road and provided noprivacy. In addition, the children also sometimesbathed at a public bathing facility that had onlyrecently being constructed by the village (50meters away). The children bathed in themorning in the dark (starting at 4:30 a.m.),despite the fact that the wells were surroundedby long grass so that the children were at riskof running into snakes or poisonous centipedes.For toilet purposes, Eben Haezer provided twobuildings (with each consisting of two toilets),with one of the buildings being located behindthe girls’ dormitory and one behind the boys’.However, both of them were located outsidethe home’s perimeter (approximately 3-5meters away). This situation not only involvesa lack of privacy, but also potentially createsunnecessary protection risks.

Institutions that cared for both boys andgirls generally provided separate bathroom andtoilet facilities. In Wahyu Yoga Dharma on theother hand and in institutions using the familycottage system, boys’ and girls’ bathrooms andtoilet facilities were shared. A lack of light wasfound to be a serious problem in almost all ofthe bathrooms/toilets, particularly those in noncottage-based institutions. A dark and murkyatmosphere was observed by the assessors inalmost all of the childcare institutions studied,but particularly in the private institutions. Notall of the bathing/toilet facilities were locatedwithin the institutions.

Privacy regarding personal care andcleanliness also involves the supply of bathingrequisites to all of the children, and theprovision of sanitary napkins to the girls. Everychild should have his or her own individualbathing requisites, such as soap, toothbrush,toothpaste, shampoo and towels. However, notall the childcare institutions provided for theseand those that did often did not provideenough. Sometimes the children would receivethem only when there were gifts from donorsor when they were supplied to them on aroutine basis by their parents. In a number ofcases, children were found to save their pocket


page

205

money or carry out paid work so they couldbuy their own toiletries. If they ran out oftoothpaste or soap and no more wasimmediately forthcoming, they would borrowfrom other children or not use soap ortoothpaste at all. In the case of sharedbathrooms, the children used bathroom bags/containers where they kept their soap andtoothpaste, and which they brought back totheir room after finishing washing. Thus,children brought their personal toiletries backand forth to the bathroom, just like a personliving in a rented room in a boarding house.

As with bathing requisites, sanitary napkinswere not provided to the girls by all of thechildcare institutions. Girls in Suci Hati Aceh,Darul Hikmah in NTB, or Eben Haezer in WestKalimantan for example, would have to buysanitary napkins themselves out of their pocketmoney or money they receivedfrom their parents. Otherwise,they would have to borrow themor use cloths that they washedfor reuse. In a number of cases,girls also did that because theywere to shy to ask staff for thenapkins. Guidance about personalhygiene and care duringmenstruation was sometimesgiven by the staff when girlsexperienced their first periods aswas found in Al Ummah forexample. More usually however,the girls would only receiveadvice from the older girls in theinstitution.

Beyond the physical aspects of privacy,there seemed to be little awareness in theinstitutions of children’s needs for personalspaces, places where they could be on theirown or places where they could meet anddiscuss with other children or staff, includingbe provided with individual counselling orsupport. Special areas for such purposes hadbeen set aside in none of the childcareinstitutions that were surveyed. In many of theinstitutions where space was at a premium,there was simply nowhere for the children tohave heart-to-heart conversions or receivecounselling. In fact, in these institutions, space

was so lacking that the same rooms were oftenused for a variety of purposes. And so, thechildren had to find there own places to bealone or chat with a friend in confidence. Forexample, the children from Dr. J. Lukas woulduse the walk home from school to have heart-to-hearts, while in Lohoraung the childrenwould chat behind the institution. InMuhammadiyah Cilacap, the children would talkin their rooms or on the second floor if noone was around, while those in Patmos wouldget together in their rooms, study room or“the yard of the girls dormitory under the rose-apple tree.”

In a few cases, the children would takethemselves off to the beach to get some timeon their own, such as the children from HukeIna, which was located right beside the beach.In other childcare institutions, the children

would try to get some time on their own inthe garden or vegetable plot or the prayerroom (‘musholla’). Accordingly, it was clearthat the children would seek out and avail ofplaces where they could be comfortable andfelt safe to chat with and share confidenceswith their friends. The bedroom, which isnormally considered to be a person’s mostprivate place, was not a favourite place for suchprivate sharing among the children due to thepresence of other children (where dormitoriesor shared-rooms were employed). The factthat bedrooms were frequently small, lackingin ventilation, crowded, lacking in curtains andwith the beds crowded together clearly


page

206

revealed the lack of attention given to children’sneed for privacy. This resulted in many caseswith children feeling uncomfortable and madeit difficult for them to be on their own.

When visiting the sort of places describedabove for private conversations, children’s mostcommon companions were friends, roommatesor older children who could be trusted andgive advice. The matters discussed covered awide variety of personal and confidential. Insome of the institutions, as described in thesection on social relations, the relationsbetween the staff/managers and the childrenwere quite distant so that it was impossiblefor the children to talk to staff members aboutpersonal matters. A big age gap between thechildren and those responsible for looking afterthem, such as was the case in Patmos and inPepabri, also sometimes made it impossible forthe children to confide in the staff. Otherreasons why children did not confide in staffmembers was that they were difficult to reach,or would only scold the child. As one childfrom Al Ikhlas said,

“It’s difficult to meet the staff, and you’d beafraid of being scolded if you talked openlyto them.”

Not surprisingly in such circumstances, thechildren would be afraid to discuss anythingwith staff members that concerned problemsin the childcare institution or with management,or to discuss anything to do with relationshipswith the opposite sex, which were forbiddenin all of the childcare institutions surveyed.

Another problem was the fact that mostof the childcare institutions did not provideany private space where children could receivevisitors, whether from their parents, or otherfamily members or friends from outside. Suchmeetings usually took place in the parlours,assembly halls, in the official room for guestsof the institution or in the yards of theinstitutions. In Huke Ina for example, which isbased around a cottage system, the institutiondid not provide any private space for thosewanting to visit the children. The rooms usuallyused for that purpose was the visitor’s roomof the carers. Nur Ilahi, on the other hand, didprovide a special room for guests including

children’s families who were able to visit andeven stay over.

The above description shows that whileprivacy was often not regarded as a priorityby the institutions and many children were notfamiliar with the term, the need for somepersonal space at the physical and personallevel was nevertheless felt by children and theyhad to develop their own strategies to findways to access it whenever needed.

Choice

Across the 36 childcare institutionsstudied, the opportunity for children to makechoices was almost exclusively limited to majoreducational decisions. Some institutions, on theother hand, allowed no room whatsoever forchildren to make choices.

The freedom to choose a school wasgenerally identified as the one opportunitygiven to children to make a choice by almostall of the childcare institutions except WoroWiloso in Central Java where the choice ofschool was left to the institution. In a fewinstitutions this freedom of choice alsoextended to vocational training coursesundertaken as part of the extra curricularactivities at school particularly for the olderchildren as was the case with Nur Ilahi in WestKalimantan, or Dorkas and Dr. J. Lukas in NorthSulawesi for examples.

In reality though, the choice of school wasfound to be limited in practice by the availabilityof funds from the institution, distance and whatwere deemed the ‘academic’ capacity of thechildren. As the Manager of Pamardi Utomoin Central Java explained,

“It’s all about compromise and consensushere. We don’t have a dictatorial system. Wemake them go to vocational school, but ifthe children aren’t interested, then we’reonly wasting our time. Even if theygraduate, there’s no guarantee they’ll get ajob. Some of our students have graduatedfrom teacher-training college and are nowworking as teachers, some of our highschool graduates have become police


page

207

officers. But if a child wants to go to highschool but doesn’t have the ability? That’schildren for you. But we try to encouragethem.”

Those childcare institutions that enabledsome choice by the children in relation to theireducation generally provided them informationon the schools available, particularly in the caseof vocational schools, and the sort of skillsrequired by the job market. Cost, distance andfriends were the principal factors taken intoconsideration by the children in making theirdecisions. In reality, however, the final decisionwas rarely taken solely by the child based onpersonal preference as he or she also had totake into consideration the financial capacityof the institution. This was illustrated by a childfrom Darurrokhmah in Central Java,

“... normally, we children are allowed to makeour own choices when it comes to school. Evenif the school was far away, we could still chooseit. But as most of our friends are attendingschool here, we don’t have much choice butto go to school here also.”

The children fully understood that all oftheir educational costs were covered by thechildcare institutions. In the Muslim-basedchildcare institutions which operated togetherwith a pesantren, children were generally notprovided with a choice of school as they hadto attend the school provided by the parentorganisation.

Nur Ilahi in West Kalimantan, however, wasa positive exception in that regard as itprovided children in its care with a greaterrange of choices regarding their daily lives. Asone member of staff at Nur Ilahi explained,“The children are already big so that we often askthem about things concerning the institution, likewhat they want to eat, even the colour of the paintfor the walls – it’s they who decide on the colourfor the rooms. You can see that the colour of eachroom is different – some have gone for blue, someyellow, some pink.”

The fact that the children in somechildcare institutions were not permittedchoices was seen as resulting from variousfactors. The most common reason expressed

by the childcare institutions themselves was alack of facilities and money. As a result of theselimitations, the management and staff felt thatoffering children a choice was simply unrealistic.Children have to take what they can get.Another reason given in some cases was thebelief that providing children with choice wouldbe ‘spoiling them’ and children were seen asneeding strict rules and discipline, as was thecase at Woro Wiloso in Central Java forexample. In such institutions, the only choicethe children were given was to follow the rulesor to be punished. In those pesantren-basedinstitutions that applied the ‘cadre’ systems, thechildren had to submit to all the rules andteaching methods that were applied, with theresult that they were groomed or moulded inline with the formula established by theorganization running the institution.

The restrictions on children’s choiceswere not confined solely to education. In HukeIna, the Government institution in Maluku forexample, the children said that they were notafforded choices regarding any mattersimpinging on the operation of the institution,such as the services provided, the pattern ofcare, the “rolling” mechanism for the placementof children with foster families, the choice offoster families, or the food served. Everythingwas decided by the institution’s management.One child said, “No you can’t, .(choose). ... thereare rules to be followed if you live here.”

In Lohoraung in North Sulawesi anotherreason given for limiting children’s choices wasthe isolated location of the institution on theremote island of Sangihe which meant that notmany choices were deemed available.

With regard to religion, as we saw earlierchildren in almost all the institutions wererequired to perform their religious duties anddoing so constituted one of the mostimportant rules of the institutions. Religiouspractice was in most cases in line with thereligion on which the institution was foundedand while few institutions admitted childrenfrom different faiths, those that did tended torequire these children to also follow theteachings of the religion of the majority. InPrajapati in North Sulwesi for example, one of


page

208

the children said: “We are allowed to performour religious duties in line with the teachings ofour respective religions. But we are introduced tothe values of Buddhism. In our view all religionsare good. Many of Buddha’s teachings are goodand applicable to our lives, such as his promotionof simplicity, wisdom and spirit.” Similarly inPatmos in NTB, there were a number ofCatholic children that worshipped accordingto Protestant rites following the ethos of theinstitution and the religion of its manager. Thiswas explained by one child: “Yes, for prayer andworship, we follow Protestant rites as the lady incharge here is Protestant. But on Sundays we goto the Catholic church ...”

Quite a different situation prevailed in NurIlahi, whose primary objective was to educatenew converts to Islam. Even though thisinstitution gave children choice as regards tosuch things as the food they ate, the schoolsthey attended, and even the colour of the paintin their rooms, children from other faiths whoentered the institutions were required tobecome and live as Muslims.

Given their high level of dependence onthe institution in order to access education,the scope for children to exercise choice wasin reality very restricted. The considerationsand decisions put forward by the staff/managerswere generally to be followed by the childrenand this applied not only to questions ofeducation, but to all other aspects of life in theinstitution. Children who refused to accept orcomply with the decisions that had been madefor them would face punishment, or evenexpulsion from the institution which in turnmeans the loss of education. Where choiceswere provided, it tended to be in cases wherethese coincided with the priorities of theinstitution itself and its staff, as we saw earlierin the case of Nirmala where children hadasked the institution to organise a religiouspractice competition and the management hadagreed to it because as the head of theinstitution explained, “In reality, this had alreadybeen planned, but we wanted to wait for thechildren to suggest it. In actual fact what thechildren wanted was the same as what had beenplanned by the institution. So the competition wentahead.”

Dignity

Every child is a unique individual with ownpersonal needs and capacity as well asexperiences. The fact that there were generallyno individualised services in the childcareinstitutions but instead services tended to beprovided collectively meant that children livingin residential institutions were often treatedon a uniform basis, rather than as individualsentitled to dignity. The children from DarulHikmah in NTB, for example, said that apositive image or concept of self was notpromoted, and that the staff never providedthem with encouragement or the informationthey needed, save as regards religious dutiesand schoolwork.

The strong emphasis by the institutionson these children being ‘neglected’, ‘orphans’or from poor families also meant that low selfesteem was sometimes being promoted byinstitutions and children saw themselves as‘abandoned’ or orphaned even when they werenot. In some institutions the process ofidentification of the children with orphan hoodwas particularly encouraged. Al Muthadien inNorth Sulawesi and Hidayatullah in Maluku forexample, turned all of their charges into“orphans” during the cadre-grooming process.Relationships with families were activelydiscouraged in these institutions and childrenmoved across provinces to different institutions


page

209

so that they would not be able to maintainstrong bonds with their own family.

In other institutions, children were oftenreminded of their social status either asorphans or as children from deprived families,sometimes with the aim of encouraginghumility or feelings of gratitudes for what theywere provided with, sometimes apparently withthe aim of creating a sense of shared ‘fate’among the children. In the Governmentinstitution in West Kalimantan children wereleft in no doubt about how they were viewedby the institution and how they were expectedto feel about themselves in notices posted bythe institution’s management on the walls ofthe establishment.

“You are categorized as being orphaned,poor, neglected, disadvantaged. “Reflect onthis!”

In Prajapati in North Sulawesi, children hadto sing the same song composed by theBuddhist monk that heads the institutionbefore eating everyday, clearly aiming to remindthem of their ‘status’ as parentless children eventhough many of these children still had parents.Despite the routine nature of the process, thesong clearly evoked strong emotions amongthe children,

“Try to hear and try to remember,the crying from the institution,children suffering who were born,without knowing their fathers or mothers.

.... what we long for,the love of a father and mother,amid the joking and laughing there is suffering,and smiles can quickly turn to tears

I’ve no father and no mother,Only tears,Come to me mother,I miss your love…”

Notwithstanding all of the above, it wasfound that some childcare institutions did try

to ensure that the dignity of the children waspromoted. Sayap Kasih in North Sulawesi forexample strived hard to uphold the dignity ofchildren in its care – children with both mentaland physical disability- by attending to them asindividuals with different personalities andcapacities. Al Ummah in Aceh also refrainedfrom erecting a name-board at the entranceto the institution declaring it to be a childcareinstitution as it was believed such a boardwould only demean the children. The institutionalso allowed the children to mix with childrenfrom the surrounding community, subject tocertain restrictions such as not being allowedto play video games, gamble, etc. This approachseemed to have been conditioned by the factthat people in Central Aceh (where Al Ummahis located) have traditionally been embarrassedto place their children in residential care asthis would signify a lack of means on the partof their families.

Strengthening children’s self-confidencewas also stated to be an objective by a numberof childcare institutions as part of the effortto uphold the children’s dignity. In order tobring this about, the children at Lohoraung inNorth Sulawesi were invited in turns to specialevents by the head of the institution. At Dr. J.Lukas, foster families were encouraged todifferentiate as little as possible between theirown children and the children they werefostering.

At some childcare institutions, the childrenfelt positive about being in residential care. Thechildren at Patmos, for example, said that “Ibu”(the Manager) had always encouraged themto build up their self-confidence and forgefriendships with other children. The childrenfelt comfortable living in the institution. At SOSDesa Taruna, the children said they were happyas they had the opportunity to attend school,all their needs (such as food, clothing, schoolrequisites) were taken care of, and they learnedhow to look after themselves. They said theywere not ashamed to be living in the SOS DesaTaruna.

Nevertheless, in some institutions, such asDarurrokhmah, the children admitted that theysometimes felt inferior to be living in a childcare


page

210

institution. In a number of institutions childrenreferred to rules, activities, punishments andeven statements/utterances that they felt weredemeaning to them. In one institution in WestKalimantan, for example, the children said thatthey were upset by some of the comments ofstaff members. In particular, they were upsetby demeaning comments about their familiesand the poverty in which they lived, such as:“Here you have everything. Just remember howyou had to eat rubber seeds before.” Accordingto the girl in question, “No matter how poor wewere, we never had to eat rubber seeds ... it isreally hurtful when you hear that kind of things.”One of the children’s parents was also insultedwhen she brought her child some rambutan:“Just like a rich person ... buying rambutan ... Ifyou’re so rich, why don’t you stay in a hotel ... I wasso upset I cried ... Mum was only able to stay twodays here.” If the Manager was angry, “his shoutswould be so loud that we’d all hear him ... it’s notnice to hear shouting like that ... he’d do this ifsomeone didn’t do his picket duties, or somethinglike that.” The children felt uncomfortable whenhe was around, and his presence tended toerode the motivation and hopes of the children.For example, he would frequently refer to thechildren as “anak kampung” (village yokels).

Abusive language was also frequently usedin another childcare institution in WestKalimantan, where the children were frequentlyreferred to as being “idiots”, “poor”,“uneducated”, “fools”, “useless”, and “lazy”.According to the children here, one of the staffmembers had once pronounced, “I’d rather belooking after goats than you lot.” On anotheroccasion, “You’re all no better than goats. You’vegot no ethics and you’ve got no manners.”

Another manager said, “If someone doessomething wrong, I ask (him) you want to becomehead of village or something else?! You’ve got to besmart. If someone is smart, I’ll tell him he’s smart.If someone’s an idiot, I’ll call him an idiot, won’t I?”It was against this background that one of thechildren complained: “It’s like being in prison.There’s no difference between us and prisoners.The only difference is that prisoners can’t go out,while we go to school.”

This sort of demeaning behaviour was notthe monopoly of childcare institutions in WestKalimantan. In one state childcare institutionin Central Java, the children also subjected todemeaning comments, such as the comment“ugly creature”, uttered by a staff member uponseeing a girl shortening her skirt. This staffmember also frequently said that the childrenwere thieves, and made the followingstatement: “You don’t pay! I had to pay. You’regiven everything and you still want more. Whyshould I have to worry about children whose originsare dubious?” Demeaning treatment was alsodirected at the children particularly when theywere punished either through physicalpunishment or through humiliating punishment.In a childcare institution in Maluku whenchildren were required to attend a “hearing”in connection with an alleged infraction, oneof the staff told the child,

“You’ve been given food and a nice bedhere. And yet you still don’t want to obeythe rules. What do you really want? If youdon’t like the rules, just get out!”

In another institution, if a child had donesomething wrong, he or she would be given adressing down before the entire assembly, as ifthe child had done something unforgivable. Achild in another childcare institution in Malukudescribed one of the punishments imposed bystaff, “If you’re ordered to roll along the ground,the other kids are lined up to watch ... it’s reallyembarrassing.” According to another child: “Iwas slapped and scolded by the ustad. Everyonewas watching and l istening. I was reallyembarrassed and wanted to hit the ustad. But Iwas able to control myself.”

Demeaning words and language were alsodirected at the children in a childcare institutionin NTB. One child recalled how he had beeninsulted by a member of staff in the followingterms: “You’ve been given food and drink. Nowonder you’re spoilt. It would be better lookingafter chickens than you useless lot.” One child asa result remarked, “They’re not really fit to be incharge of us.”

The children said that after being scoldedin this way, many of them were reduced totears, and would miss their parents. It appeared


page

211

there was virtually no limits on the amount ofscolding that could be engaged by some staff.One child in an institution in Maluku recalled:“Before when Ibu (staff) would get angry, she wouldsay that we were only here as beggars. I used tobe really embarrassed and would feeluncomfortable with her. But that was before. Maybeshe was also having problems.” Another childrecounted: “If Ibu’s angry, she normally screamsat the top of her voice. The children are called upso that everyone knows, everyone can hear.”Another child had this to say, “I tell my friendsnot to be afraid. If we all went home, this foundationwould have to close down and then the teacherswould also have problems.”

There were also statements made by staffs,which were apparently aimed to encouragespirit in the children, but actually demeanedthem as “anak panti” (children of institutions).In one institution in Maluku, one of the staffstated,

“Children in residential care should have asense of shame. They shouldn’t be proud orill-behaved. We are showing sympathy forthem here. The children are taught to bepolite. Because they live in an institutionthanks to the concern shown by others, theyneed to know that they must meet theexpectations of those who are concernedfor them ... repay their kindness. In order tohave confidence in themselves, the childrenneed to continually perform their religiousduties, be polite to others, go regularly tothe mosque. Such behaviour needs to beseen by others so that the children areworth something.”

The various actions and statementsdescribed above not only demean the dignityof the children, but in some cases could alsobe categorized as amounting to degrading andhumiliating treatment. The children were madeto feel ashamed about who they were andwhere they came from, and as a result theylost hope, their motivation to succeed waseroded, and they ended up feeling burdenedby the stigma attached to their social status,as if they were never going to be allowed toemerge from it. In the childcare institutionsthat engaged in verbal violence, the religious

and humanitarian teachings and the loftyconcern for the children that they espousedappeared to be little more than slogans. Theromantisation of the concept of ‘orphans’ andof destitute children seemed in many cases toserve primarily the interest of the institutionsin portraying themselves as establishments thatworked to assist the most vulnerable ratherthan serving the best interest of the childrenin their care, and enabling them to grow asconfident and secure individuals. On the otherhand, in the institutions that encouragedpositive feelings among children aboutthemselves and where staff showed actualrespect and care for the children as individuals,children were clearly feeling more positiveabout being in residential care and about theirprospect for the future more generally.

Social Relations

The area of social relations covers thosewith whom children living in childcareinstitutions have relationships, and the extentto which those relationships were allowed todevelop or were supported. Relationships forchildren in residential care extended inparticular to the institution’s staff/managers,their parents, their peers, teachers and schoolfriends, and people living in the vicinity of thechildcare institution.

Relations between the children and staff/managers

The relations between the children andthe staff and managers were found to begenerally not very close or relaxed. This wasreflected both in the statements of the childrenand the observations of the assessors. Thepattern of discipline and punishment appliedin the majority of childcare institutions, as wellas the kind of bureaucratic arrangementsapplied in the government institutions, resultedin relations between the children and staff/managers being excessively formal, inflexible,and distant. In addition, the children were oftenleft nervous and withdrawn in front of adults.It was clear that the principal aim of childcareinstitutions in replacing parental care andproviding the close relationships and


page

212

attachment needed by children were not beingprovided in most instances. As we saw fromthe professional practice section, the focus onactual care giving and responding to the needsof children for emotional and social bonds werenot seen as crucial by staff in the great majorityof institutions. Instead staff saw discipline,obedience, compliance with rules andrequirements as key in their relationships withchildren.

Tense relations were often apparent whenthe children came into contact with staff andmanagers. In most cases, their relations werequite distant, and the children feeluncomfortable relating confidences to themor in front of them. One child in an institutionin NTB stated,

“We never joke or kid around with the staff.We’re afraid. If we want to kid around, wedo it with our friends.”

Similar comments were made by otherchildren, namely, that they did not feelcomfortable speaking about personal matters,or even joking or kidding, with members ofstaff, “It’s no problem if we just meet with (thehead) but I wouldn’t have the nerve to tell himanything confidential. The most I’d do would askhim questions in the mushola (prayer room).”Another child said: “I never chat with the staff.They’re only ever here for a short while. It’s (thehead) who comes here the most. I’m not afraid ofhim or the staff, provided I’ve done nothing wrong.”

One child from an institution in WestKalimantan recalled how the staff paid littleattention to the children, even when they weresick: “We would like to tell ... can’t be bothered,not brave enough, they never ask, they don’t giveus any attention, they just leave us be.” Anotherchild added “Where’s the care that they aresupposed to show to us?”

Children in an institution in Maluku had asimilar experience, as related by two children,

“The managers now are not very close to thechildren. They never pay any attention to thechildren. It was different with the managers whoused to be here. They were much more concernedabout what we needed. Now, the managers makeno attempt to get close to the children. There’s alack of communication with both the managersand the staff. It’s as if they don’t know how to talk

to us.”

The children were unwillingto talk to staff members as theyoften got angry. Another childsaid: “Almost all of the children,especially the teenagers, don’t likethe way things are now. There’s nofreedom. They managers never askdirectly if we have any problems, forexample, things we need for school.It’s as if they don’t want to knowhow we’re doing. All they’reconcerned about is that we followthe rules.”

In one institution in WestKalimantan, the research team found thatduring the four days of the assessment no staffhad ever entered the children’s quarters exceptone to bring the food for the breaking of thefast. The children there confirmed that staffsonly came to their rooms to check up on themor to carry out “razzias”. If a staff wanted totalk to a child, he or she would normally sendanother child to order the child to go to thestaff ’s room, but the staff never came to thechildren’s rooms in person.

Lack of time on the part of staff/managersin itself also proved to be an obstacle tobuilding closer and less formal relations withthe children in their care. In most of the


page

213

childcare institutions that were surveyed, thestaff/managers also had other jobs or roles sothat when they met with the children, theconversation would normally be confined tomatters affecting the institution or thechildren’s duties in the institution, rather thanthe children as individuals. This resulted in thestaff/managers frequently having littleknowledge about the condition of theircharges, as was stated by one child from aninstitution in Maluku,

“The staff don’t know anything about whatmakes me happy or sad, or my interests orpastimes.”

The situation was better the institutionswhich focused on family replacement. In SayapKasih for example, the staff demonstrated areal interest in and closeness to the disabledchildren in their care. Also, in both SOS DesaTaruna and Dr. J. Lukas there was evidentcloseness between children and adults livingwith foster families. In Lohoraung, children alsofelt they were loved by “Ibu”, the woman whoran the institution on her own, looking after atotal of 18 children. A closer relationshipbetween staff and children was also found in afew instances in childcare institutions caringfor bigger groups of children such as Al Ummahin Aceh, an institution where, despite caringfor over 40 children the manager seemed tohave managed to create a more familial andcaring environment. The children referred tohim and his wife as “dad” and “mum” and weretreated in the same way than their ownchildren who also lived in the institution. In afew other instances, individual children werefound to have developed particularrelationships with some of the staff membersin their institutions that were closer to themsuch as the cook or the security guard as thesetended to be the main staff interacting withthem on a daily basis.

The lack of close relations between thechildren and staff/manager’s in the majority ofchildcare institutions surveyed shows thatthese institutions are failing to provide childrenwith the crucial emotional and secureattachments essential to their properdevelopment. This is particularly worrying for

the children who are under 10 years of age asthese children are still of an age where secureattachment and bonding to care givers is criticalto their socialisation and development asindividuals. This situation combined with theenforced separation from their parents andfamilies as practised by most of the institutionsmeans that children’s emotional and socialdevelopment is simply not recognised orsupported at what is a very critical period oftheir development.

Relations between children

Unlike relations between children and thestaff/managers, relations between the childrenin residential care were found to be very close,although some indications of bullying were alsoencountered in some institutions. Variousstatements by the children emphasized theircomfort and ease in each other’s company. Asone child from Muhammadiyah Lhoksemawein Aceh explained,

“Us kids together, we’re all reallyclose....we’re all from the same beliefs,religion, we’re really close, Miss. If someonewould hit one of us, we would all stand upfor each other. We’d get him, waiting for himat the entrance gate. They’d be afraid ofus.”

This closeness and sense of togethernesswas echoed by children in many of theinstitutions surveyed and often linked by themto a sense of shared destiny and solidarity aswell as feelings of standing for one another asbrothers and sisters. In fact children were seento act as primary carers for one another andit was other children that were invariablyidentified as the closest persons to them whenasked about their relationships. While childrenrarely felt able to confide to staff and managers,they always mentioned other children as thosewith whom they could talk and share difficultiesand joys. The lack of adult carers, the emphasison children ‘taking care of themselves’ and inmany cases the disciplinarian regime run byadults meant that children relied primarily oneach other to solve problems, respond todifficulties and to cope on a daily basis. Olderchildren particularly were seen to take on acare role for younger children, not only as


page

214

envisaged by the institutions in terms ofensuring they followed the rules and were ableto handle the daily chores in the institutionbut also in terms of coping with the emotionalimpact of being far away and missing theirparents and families. This was true not onlybetween children of the same sex but alsobetween boys and girls in mixed institutions.As explained by children in Darul Aitam in NTB,

“No, none of the kids here fight. We’re allfriends. We’re all like brothers and sisters.”“Basically, we’ve all been together for a longtime. Nobody fights with anyone else. Wedon’t tease each other, either. We’re all thesame. If we don’t have something, we justborrow it from one of the others.”

Similarly in Muhammadiyah Meulaboh inAceh children said, “we are close”. In particularthis was explained to mean that they neverreported or told on each other to the staff orthe head of the institution. This closeness wasalso seen between children of senior schoollevel with children who were younger at Juniorschool level. The more senior children referredto themselves as ‘big brothers’ to the youngerones. During the FGD, the boys identified theother children in the institution as those thatwere the closest to them and who had thebiggest influence on them, more than their

friends at school whose relationships wereidentified as more distant.

The closeness between children and theimportance of the bonds between them wasalso highlighted by children in Eben Heazer inWest Kalimantan. There were a number ofreasons given why children identified theirfriends (in the institution) as the people theywere the closest to. First of all, the first personwho could be asked for help was their friend,that friend was the place to confide in, theperson they could play with, the person theycould joke with and even the person they couldargue with. The relationships between thechildren were seen to be very close and basedon helping one another. The older childrenguided the younger ones in doing their choreslike washing their clothes, sweeping the floorsor washing the dishes. “We are one family andwe must help each other”.

On the other hand, in Huke Ina in Malukuwhere children were living within family cottagewith staff and their families but were rotatedacross cottages every six months, it was foundthat the children were not able develop suchclose relationships among themselves whilethey were also unable to develop closerelationship with their adult carers.

In a few cases, children also saw their roleas helping to make sure that their lives in theinstitution would run effectively. In Lohoraung,the fact that the sole manager and caregiverdid everything in the institution also gave riseto feelings of sympathy and a willingness to dothings together.

“Living here means that we are alreadybrothers and sisters so we must care foreach other, so that if there is a problem itcan be solved together. Mama (theManager) is on her own, while there are 18of us. We all feel sorry for mama. Thingswould be chaotic if every kid did what he orshe pleased.”

While the children were close to eachother as they all felt they shared the same fate,the institutions placed limits on the extent ofthe relationships that could be developed inparticular romantic relationships were totally


page

215

prohibited as we saw earlier. There were clearprohibitions on courting and dating in all ofthe childcare institutions. If a relationshipdeveloped between a boy and a girl, this wouldhave to be conducted in secret through sendinggreetings through friends, letters, sms ormeetings at school. If the children were foundout, they would be punished severely, usuallyexpelled from the institution. In Aceh, theywould also run the risk of being arrested bythe local religious police.

Despite the closeness between children,there were also indications of bullying in someinstitutions, where bigger children would forcesmaller children to do things for them usuallycarrying out their chores. The children atPatmos in NTB had experience of this: “Thebig kids normally like to act like they’re the bosses... they like ordering the little kids around.” In NurIlahi in West Kalimantan, violence (pinching,shouting) was also directed by the olderchildren at the younger children in order toforce them to do something or obey theinstitution’s rules (prayer time, picket duty).High school children from this institution saidthat by doing so, they were only imitating whatthey had seen the staff/managers do. “Don’tblame us if we’re like that with the younger kids ...we were also brought up roughly.” In Hidayatullahin Maluku, it was also found that the biggerchildren would hit the smaller children on thehead for making mistakes during Koranic studyor not doing what they were told. At NurulIklhas in Maluku, the children identified onechild whom they said was the meanest androughest with the other children, and whowould frequently resist if told to do something.

It was clear that the children’s relationshipsand peer support played a very important partin the lives of these children and representednot only a crucial protective and supportnetwork but also a coping strategy for childrenwho were separated from other keyattachment figures. At the same time, thepotential for abuse of power and violencebetween children is real, particularly where thestaffs are aloof or distant. The punitive system,which reinforced the imposition of power bythe adults vis-à-vis the children and the use

staff and managers often made of older childrento control and discipline younger children alsocould be seen to influence the manner in whichthe older children treated their younger peers.In that context, the closeness and violencebetween the children did not seem to be onlythe result of the intense bonding and intimacyor the shared sense of fate but also the resultof the sheer lack of care and attention shownby the adults towards them in many casesleading them to feel that they could only relyon themselves..

Relations between the children and theirparents

Relations between the children and theirparents were found to be very restricted inalmost all of the institutions, with the childrenon average only meeting their parents onceper year. Normally this occurred duringLebaran, or other school vacations. Thechildren were also allowed to return home ifa family member was sick or passed away butnot always. Some of the children were foundnot have gone home for very prolongedperiods of time, in some cases more than 5years. In those cases, it was usually that theinstitution did not provide funds for the childto go home on the school break and that thechild could not afford to do so or that theinstitution actively discouraged even such shortcontact.

Outside of that annual break or holiday,children were strictly prohibited from returninghome. In general, children went home for theholidays on their own or with other childrenfrom the same area, and were not accompaniedby a member of staff. If they were accompanied,it would only be as far as the bus station. Theamount of time they spent in their parents’home averaged about a week. Even ininstitutions allowing for children to go homefor lebaran for example, the number of dayswhich they were allowed to stay there wasvery limited, sometimes only 3 days. Thiscreated some real difficulties for childrenwhose homes were a long distance away fromthe institution as for example in WestKalimantan where children sometimes had totravel over a day to get back home. In UPRS


page

216

for example, 60% of the children were foundto have come from outside of the districtwhere the institution was located includingsome in very remote locations. One staff whohad once visited a child’s home for recruitmentpurposes needed 3 days and 3 nights to reachthat particular place. Many children came fromareas that would require at least 6 to 9 hoursof hardous travel.

The main problems children experiencedupon returning home were difficulties withpaying for the bus fare or the distance involved– half of the 2,248 children living in the 36childcare institutions surveyed came fromoutside the district or municipalities where theinstitutions were located.

Besides the difficulties with transportation,as described above, another major reason whythe children only met their parents infrequentlywere because many of the childcare institutionsdeliberately tried to restrict the relationsbetween the children and their parents. A

variety of grounds were adduced to justify thispolicy. As seen above, SOS Desa Taruna placeschildren in one of its institutions outside of

the province where the child come from inorder to encourage the building of relationsin the new care family but also to discouragecontinuing relations with the biological family.As a result only 11 out of 82 children had gonehome for the annual holiday. In Nur Ilahi inWest Kalimantan, on the other hand, staffswere worried that the children would neglecttheir religious obligations if they returnedhome for holidays. However, according to thechildren, what the institution was afraid of wasthat they would revert back to the religionsor practices of their family which often wasnon Muslim. Even at Lebaran, they were notallowed to return home, but instead were sentto work as domestics in the homes of theirsponsors. In fact, some children living in NurIlahi had not been home in 9 years. In Patmos,the head of the institution commented asfollows: “If they go home frequently, they’ll bedestroyed again. They’ll become spoilt. Also, it’s veryexpensive for us to send them home. We’re notable to cover the cost.” This childcare institution

housed 25 children from other islandsparticularly Eastern Nusa Tenggara (NTT) andsome from outside the city of Mataram.

CHILDREN PROHIBITED FROM GOING HOMEDURING THE SCHOOL HOLIDAYS

Grounds:1. You are not living in a boarding house, but are rather wards of the State.2. This is a government establishment that must be guarded, cleaned, and maintained.

“This institution does not belong to (the Manager)”... “The chores” are not for staff to do.3. You are provided with food, you are not neglected, and you are taught morals, and to be

civilized and polite.4. You are categorized as being orphaned, poor, neglected, disadvantaged. “Reflect on this!”5. You must follow the rules and traditions of the home in accordance with the statements

signed by you parents/guardians.If you wish to go home, you will be given transportation money. Do not return to the UPRS.Arrange all of your school documentation yourself. There are many other children eager toenter the UPRS.

Ambawang, 29 May 2006UPRS Head


page

217

At UPRS the government institution inWest Kalimantan, the children were notpermitted to return home even during theholidays apart from Lebaran. The reasons givenfor this were clearly stipulated in a public noticepinned to the walls of the institution that readas follows:

In Darul Aitam in NTB, the length of timechildren were permitted to stay at homedepended on the performance at school. “Thelength of time you can stay at home can beextended if you do well (at school)You’re yourranking at school is good, you’ll get 4 days. If it’snot so good, you’ll only get 2 days.” (FGD withgroup of girls)

In order for a child to return home outsideof the school vacation or Lebaran, permissionfrom the childcare institution needed to beobtained which was found generally not to beeasy. In one institution in West Kalimantan, oneof the managers said,

“Here, if there’s no real urgency, thenpermission won’t be granted. The rule isonce a year at Lebaran. As I’ve explained,Miss, this isn’t a boarding house, it’s adormitory. So the children can’t just gohome whenever they feel like it.”

Even the rules for returning home incircumstances where a relative was ill or otheremergency were strict, with a documentaryevidence being required. As one of the staffsaid: “Permission will be granted if a family memberis ill. In order to make sure the child isn’t lying, aletter signed by the parent and acknowledged bythe village head is required.” Such a legalisticapproach positions the children as beinguntrustworthy, which clearly shows thechildren are not receiving the care theydeserve. The suspicion harboured by the staffregarding the trustworthiness of their chargesis a reflection of the poor relationships thatwere seen to prevail between staff and children.It also is a reflection of the fact that in almostall of the institutions surveyed, relationshipswith families were seen to be more of anuisance than an actual right or need for thechild. Even in institutions which allowedchildren to go home for holidays, such visitswere seen as interfering with children’s studies

or the education they were receiving. Manystaff saw them as being distracting or asthreatening to spoil the child or renewchildren’s angst at being separated from theirfamilies thus making their stay in the institutionmore difficult upon their return.

While the prohibitions on returning homewere not always as strict as the one describedabove, reluctance to see children going homewas evidenced across almost all of theinstitutions. As the manager of one childcareinstitution in Aceh explained, said:

“I reality, I prefer if the children don’t gohome, particularly at Idul Fitri. There’s somuch food here, and it will only go to wasteif there’s no one to eat it. But in Aceh, if it’sLebaran ... the family has to assemble. So,it’s impossible to forbid the children fromreturning home. It’s not that I hate to seethe children going home. It’s actually fortheir own good, so that they do well atschool, don’t become spoiled by theirparents. I’m happier to see the parentsphoning up instead. There’s no need forthem to come here. The parents or siblingscan call the office, tell me whom they wantto speak to, and I’ll call the child.”

Besides transportation problems andrestrictions on going home, another problemthat arose in a few cases was that the parentsof a child may be divorced or separated sothat the child did not know which parent tovisit, or even where his parents were. One childin Al Amin had this to say: “My mum and daddivorced when I was 7, and I don’t know wherethey are now. I’m really upset with them. Now, Ilive with my uncle. My uncle says my parents arein Pontianak, but I’m not interested in looking forthem. Bang J(The head of the institution) knowsabout that, and he always tells us to pray for ourparents. But, they’re bad. They never want to seeme. I am so disappointed ...”.

In one case, a child’s parents were divorcedand his mother worked in Malaysia and hisfather in another city. The child and his youngersibling were never visited by their parents, andit appeared that they would be staying in theinstitution for good.


page

218

While there were a few children who werefrequently visited by their parents, mostchildren rarely received visits. The staff at WoroWiloso in Central Java for example, estimatedthat 80 percent of the children in that childcareinstitution never received visits from theirparents. The main reason for this was the longdistances parents generally had to travel andthe cost of the journey.

In order to contact their children, parentswould normally telephone the childcareinstitution, or call one of the staff/managerson their cell phones, or in the rare cases wherechildren had their own cell phone they wouldcall them directly. Children who were returninghome would also carry messages and otherthings from children from the same area totheir parents, and vice versa. Waiting fortelephone calls from home always causedbutterflies in the stomach for some of thechildren at Patmos, as recounted by one child,

“Oh, we really miss our parents. Normallyon Sunday, one of my siblings calls. OnSunday, we’re all waiting for calls. If thetelephone rings, we all run to it. Who knows,it might be our parents? The problem is, Ihaven’t received a call for two weeks fromKupang, I really miss them ...”.

Waiting for telephone calls that comerarely can be a disappointing experience forchildren. A child in an institution in WestKalimantan recalled the negative reaction fromone of the staff when he received a call fromhis friend: “U (a friend) called me from my village...he asked me when I was coming home ... TheManager said ‘this is very rude, who is this?” Inone institution in Central Java, the childrenwould rarely be informed if a call was received.“The office is locked all the time! We receive callsbut we’re never told. The head of the institutionsays the phone rings too much.” In anotherinstitution in Maluku, children’s phone callswould be frequently listened in on by the staff.“If there is a staff that listens in, better not to talkon the telephone” remarked one child.

Restrictions placed on contact betweenparents and children in a number of institutionsoften arose out of concern that this wouldlead to changes in the children’s behaviour. This

was based on the belief that the children whohad regular contacts with their families wouldnot behave as well in the institution. Whilefrom the perspective of food and access toeducation, life in a childcare institution maysometimes be better than what the childrenwould receive in their impoverishedhouseholds, the assumption that childrenwould be adversely affected by meeting withtheir parents and families needs to be seriouslyquestioned. Instead these restrictions highlightthe fact that these institutions are not reallyabout childcare but rather are more akin toboarding schools, where the children onlyreturn home for the holidays or Lebaran. Unlikeboarding schools though, children are notallowed to go home for all of the holidays. Ifthe childcare function was really the objectiveof the placement, relationships betweenchildren and parents, children and their familiesand friends as well as relations betweenchildren and the staff would become thepriority and would be seen as key to thesuccess of the child’s placement and the workof the institution.

The restrictions placed in most of theinstitutions on children’s contact with theirfamilies had also longer term impact. In somecases, the infrequency with which children wereallowed to return home resulted in thembecoming strangers in their own villages, andeven to their own parents as was recountedby two children,

“When we went home the first time, mamadidn’t know us. We were both big, both of uswere wearing ‘jilbab’ (Muslim head scarfs),which is Yasmin, which is Zahar?”

The two children also became estrangedfrom their siblings, whom they had rarely metor talked to by telephone since they had lefthome. The length of time some children hadbeen away from home also made themunwilling to return. As one child said: “I can’tbe bothered going home ... there’s no electricity,there’s nothing ...” In some cases, children werereluctant to go home as life in their homevillages was not as comfortable as in thechildcare institution. In the institution, they hadaccess to various modern conveniences, while


page

219

everything was lacking at home. This separationand alienation from their families andcommunities is also likely to mean thatreintegration into normal life once they havefinished high school is going to prove a verydifficult process for many of these children.

Relations between the children and thecommunity

The relations and interaction between thechildren and people in the surroundingcommunities were limited. Children spent mostof their time either in the childcare institutionsor at school. Their busy schedules in theinstitutions meant that they had no time toplay outside of them. The following statementmade by a child at Patmos in NTB is quiterepresentative of what the children in the otherinstitutions had to say: “We rarely get out of thehome.. So, we’re not very close to our neighbours.Normally, we come straight home here after school...”. Meanwhile, a child living in Suci Hati in Acehcommented as follows: “The neighbours here ...very distant ... never meet us ... just stare at us ...because we don’t get out much.”

In some childcare institutions, the childrencame into contact with the local communitywhen worshiping in the neighbourhoodmosque or church. In some other institutions,the children would participate in thecommunity festivities to mark IndependenceDay. Lohoraung was unique in that the femalemanager who ran it would bring the childrenin turns to events to which she had beeninvited. This formed part of her efforts tointroduce the children to the community andincrease their self-respect. Other opportunitiesfor mixing with the local community aroseduring visits by sponsors. In a number ofchildcare institutions, the children regularly metwith their sponsors. Nur Ilahi in WestKalimantan would hold a formal event with thechildren being assembled in the front room tothank their sponsors, whose hands they wouldkiss. During Ramadan, a time when a great dealof assistance was received by Nur Ilahi, thefollowing was observed, “If a visitor arrives, thechildren are seated some distance away. They thenline up to greet the visitor when told to do so. It is

normal practice here for the children to line up inneat ranks to greet sponsors when they visit.”

The presence of children who are orphansor deemed neglected is an important aspectof many religious events and ceremonies.During Ramadan, children from the institutionsare often invited to breaking-the-fastgatherings, some even in luxury hotels. As forthe Christian institutions, these are visited bymany people at Christmas to distribute gifts.In NTB, children are also frequently invited tospecial religious events as the prayers oforphans are believed to be particularlypersuasive. Some people even visit the childcareinstitutions to have prayers said on their behalfby the “orphans” so that they will be awardedpromotions, for example, or that their lives willbe happier. In Al Amin, a young girl of six wasplaced in the institution a few months beforeas her mother was a widow and making endsmeet working as a washer woman. Theinstitution occasionally “lent” the girl out forbetween 3 days to a week to one of theneighbouring woman who had taken a likingto her. The girl was deemed particularly cuteand the woman’s daughter liked to play withher. The head of Al Amin explained that thiswas designed to help relieve the load on theinstitution as well as to fulfil the child’s needsfor social intercourse bearing in mind that shealmost never went home.

Apart from the various forms andobjectives of interaction between children inresidential care and the surroundingcommunities, it is clear that social relationsbetween the children and their neighbourshelps the children to get to know new peopleoutside of the institution and school. This assiststhe children to become familiar with the localculture and customs. Nevertheless, in somecases it seemed that children’s interactions withthe outside world were limited to activitiesthat would benefit the institution and its statusrather than the children themselves.

Relations at School

Although the children generally said theywere happy at school and seemed to fit well, anumber of children felt embarrassed due to


page

220

perceptions among their teachers and schoolfriends that they did not have parents and werefrom poverty-stricken families. In Suci Hati inAceh, one of the children said,

“For example, the teachers often slag offthe institution. For example, they talk aboutchildren not having parents ... We felt hewas talking about us ... but in reality we dohave parents, its just that our parents don’thave any money. On TV, you see kids whodon’t know who their fathers are ... don’tknow where they are ... abandoned ... butwith us, it’s clear... we have parents ... ormaybe they’ve died ... or don’t have anymoney.”

The children were sensitive to the terms“orphan” or “fatherless child” or “indigent” asthey felt that these terms had a direct bearingon themselves. These feelings becameparticularly pronounced when they were latepaying their school fees as this would frequentlylead to them being humiliated by beingquestioned openly in front of their classmates.A child from Muhammadiyah Cilacap in CentralJava related the following account,

“I was really upset and embarrassed infront of my classmates and teachers. But Iwasn’t able to explain to them why I waslate paying. I had to stand up in front withmy head bent down. Then out of nowhereone of my classmates said I was from theinstitution.”

The behaviour of other children at schoolsometimes caused problems for the childrenin care. This was stated by the children fromLohoraung: “Sometimes youfeel upset if the other kids teaseus about being poor. Normallythis happens if we get into afight.” The children fromWahyu Yoga Dharma also hadtrouble with some children atschool who called them suchnames as “kuper” (nerd),“ndeso” (country yokels), and“poko’e si kemproh” (you’re justa jerk), or would shout atthem “cah panti koq ngono” or“biasane cah panti ya koyongono” (‘panti children’

shouldn’t be like this or ‘panti children’ are justlike this...).

Childcare institutions also normallyprovide advice to the children so as to helpthem fit in and do well at school. An exampleof the sort of advice proffered is that given tothe children at Al Ikhlas, as recalled by one child:“I was told by Pak V (the founder), that childrenfrom the institution should set an example at school.If we don’t do well, it won’t only affect us, but willalso affect the good name of the institution.”

Identity

A child’s identity in this context does notonly refer to a child’s name or other particulars,but also his or her religious, social, cultural andlanguage identity.

With regard to the documentation ofchildren’s identities, all of the childcareinstitutions had basic records, but thecomprehensiveness of these differed widelyfrom one institution to another. In general, thechildcare institutions could only provide thebasic particulars of the child, such as his or hername, date of birth, age, educational level, andparental. Many of the institutions did not recordthe names by which children were familiarlycalled, and the majority failed to record thenames of both their parents. Not all of theinstitutions had photographs of the childrenin their care, and only in a few institutions wasdata on the children maintained in individualfiles. In some cases, the data consisted ofnothing more than a couple of sheets of paperfor all of the children. The records were also


page

221

rarely updated so that discrepancies werefrequently found between the number ofchildren recorded as living in a particularinstitution and the real number. Only in acouple of institutions recorded the casehistories of the children in their care.

In this regard, the government childcareinstitutions were somewhat better on average.The majority of them maintained individual filesfor each child using standard forms. Each child’srecord would also contain, for example,information on his/her family, photocopies ofschool reports, the agreement by which thechild’s parents surrendered him or her to theinstitution, and other basic information. Themajority of the children were found not topossess birth certificates except in SOS DesaTaruna where all of the children were foundto have one. If the identity of the child was notclear, that institution would organise for a birthcertificate to be issued linked to the care familyin SOS. A few other institutions also madeefforts to obtain birth certificates for thechildren such as in Dr. J. Lukas in North Sulawesiand Huke Ina in Maluku where the institutionwould seek to get birth certificates for thechildren that did not have any upon enteringthe institution. UPRS in West Kalimantanobtained birth certificates for childrenparticipating in sports and art week, accordingto staff, to prevent children lying about theirages.

Most of the childcare institutions surveyedwere found to maintain some records of thechildren’s parents and their addresses, althoughsome of these records were found to be poorlymaintained and did not seem to be updated.The fact that most institutions put strictrestrictions on contact with families meant thatthere was little attempt to keep accuraterecords of the families whereabouts or aboutthe families development including whethertheir social-economic situation had improvedor not. Children’s connection and sense ofbelonging to their communities and theirfamilies were generally not encouraged in thatcontext and in some cases it was even activelydiscouraged.

The faith based childcare institutions —whether Muslim, Christian, Buddhist or Hindu– were all deeply imbued with religion. This isreflected in their values, religious practice andworship, education, clothes and social relationswithin the institutions. As we saw earlier, inthe majority of institutions, children wererecruited from communities which shared thesame faith than that practiced by the institutionand therefore were expected to follow thereligious practices and rules as set out by theinstitution. In Islamic-based institutions, the girlswere required to wear veils/headscarves andcover up their entire bodies. In fact, some ofthe institutions such as Darul UlumMunawarrah in Aceh only allowed girls to wearbaju kurung (traditional all-encompassingcostume), and prohibited them from wearingtrousers, even though they covered up the legs.Jeans were particularly prohibited. For the boys,standard dress consisted of sarongs, kopeah(traditional hat) and “koko” (collarless, long-sleeved shirt) to be worn particularly aroundpraying time although outside of these timesthey could wear casual clothes. Theserequirements were intended to remind thechildren of their religion, and, in thoseinstitutions that strove to groom cadres, toencourage the children to become propagatorsof Islam after they leave the institution.

In the case of institutions caring forchildren of different religion such as Prajapatiin North Sulawesi, SOS Desa Taruna in CentralJava or Patmos in NTB, children werepermitted to continue to practice their religion,but often also took part in the religiousactivities and lifestyle of the majority. InPrajapati, for example, the children were freeto practice their own religions, but alsofollowed the Buddhist practices within theinstitution, such as the procedures for dining,the focus on simplicity and vegetarianism. Thesituation was different, however, in one of theinstitutions in West Kalimantan which focusedon new converts to Islam and where non-Muslim children converted to Islam uponentering the institution. This process ofconversion also entailed Dayak children beingraised as ‘Malay’ children, with ‘Malay’ beingregarded as synonymous with Islam and which


page

222

English were the only languages that could bespoken.

l In Darul Hikmah in NTB, since September2006, the children have been required touse Arabic and English on alternate daysto communicate with the staff/managersand other children. The use of the localSasak language is not encouraged eventhough the children are more comfortableusing it.

l In Darul Ulum in Aceh, the children areallowed to use their local languages forthe first six months after entering theinstitution. After that, however, they areonly allowed to speak Indonesian, Englishand Arabic. The professed objective is thatthe children will gain fluency in theselanguages.

l In Ibnu Tamiyah in West Kalimantan, locallanguages are also prohibited. However,newly arrived children are normally notaccustomed to speaking Indonesian so thatthey continue to frequently use their ownlanguages. However, violations of theprohibition on the use of local languagescarries a fine of Rp 500, payable to OPPIT(“Students Organization”). The names ofthose caught speaking their own languagesare recorded on a piece of paper and thechild is made to stand in the sun with asign that says, “Don’t be like him”.

l In Muhammadiyah Lhoksemawe in Aceh,one of the managers gave this explanation,“During the conflict earlier, people had tospeak Acehnese. But here, the children weren’trequired to speak Acehnese. In fact, we advisedthem to speak Indonesian.”

While the use of Indonesian, Arabic andEnglish may enable children to improve theirfluency in these languages, it is ironic that thishas to be accompanied by bans on the use oftheir own languages. While the children maygain a greater understanding of the outsideworld, they are also likely to gradually forgetabout their own cultures if they are not allowedto speak their languages. A language is muchmore than just words. It also entails socio-cultural aspects. If a person does not know hisor her own language, he or she will be in dangerof losing their identity and find it particularly

entailed children being ‘weaned’ away fromtheir socio-cultural backgrounds.

The emphasis on religious practice andprinciples in many of the institutions meantthat the religious aspects were given muchgreater priority than local socio-culturalcharacteristics. In Hidayatullah, the head of theinstitution explained,

“In reality, we don’t pay too much attentionto this as all of the children here are taughtnot on the basis of their culturalbackgrounds, but rather the values of Islam.The fact that some of them have changedtheir names is not designed to erase theiridentities, but rather to increase their self-respect as their original names wereconsidered inappropriate.”

This practice of changing children’s namesto what were deemed more suitable namesunder the particular religion was found in anumber of institutions and was done withoutprior consultation with the child. In anotherinstitution in West Kalimantan, children’s nameswere not changed but expanded to include thename of their father as in Dayak culture onlyfirst names are used and this was felt confusingin terms of differentiating between children.

The priority given to religious identity alsomeant that in some cases institutions saw thisas the only aspect of children’s identity thatwould be relevant to their future lives,particularly if these children were to begroomed to become ‘Cadres’ for theorganisation as highlighted by the head of DarulAitam,

“Normally, the branches send children hereto become cadres. So, we train them up,and, God willing, when they leave here,they’re ready to be used. By ‘cadre’ wemean that the child will become an imam, apreacher, yes, a cadre of the organization.”

Another aspect of children’s social andcultural identity which was not prioritised inmany of the childcare institutions was the useof their own local language. In these institutionschildren were prohibited from using their ownlocal language and would be punished if theydid. Indonesian and in some cases Arabic and


page

223

Yasmin is a Dayak girl of 16, and was formerlyknown as X. She left her hometown 9 yearsago as she wanted to improve the quality ofher life. The desire to obtain a free educationso as to improve their lives were the reasonswhy Yasmin, and her elder sister, Zahra, decidedto go with their uncle to an Islamic childcareinstitution in Pontianak. Their younger siblingwas also sent to a pesantren (Islamic boardingschool) in Singkawang by Yasmin’s parents forthe same reason. Although Yasmin and Zahradid not know that this childcare institution wasan Islamic institution, the main motivation forthem going there was to seek a better life.

“... before I had a problem with my twosiblings ... I couldn’t stand living withgrandma ... so my uncle suggested I go toPontianak and enter a childcare institution... I was really interested ... I used to oftenplay truant from school ... he suggested I goto a childcare institution in Pontianak ... butuncle didn’t say anything about it being aMuslim childcare institution ...”

Yasmin started her new life in the childcareinstitution in 1998, just as she was due to entergrade 1 of elementary school. Treated asconverts to Islam, Yasmin and Zahra repeatedthe Muslim profession of faith after enteringthe childcare institution. Explaining how ithappened that they became Muslim converts,Yasmin says that they did not know what theywere doing. According to her, her uncle wasthe major factor behind the girls’ conversion.

“Before, I didn’t know ... our family are allChristian ... not all, but mum and dad are.Our uncles are Muslim ... I don’t know whyuncle brought us to the childcare institution ...I had no wish to become a Muslim ... but Iwas only a child when I entered the institution.”

Not all of the children became convertswithout being informed what was happening

LIFE STORY:

Yasmin And Zahra And Other Children From West Kalimantan

beforehand. Siblings Tina and Nur, for example,had known that this particular childcareinstitution was a Muslim institution, but, likeYasmin and Zahra, they wanted to get a goodeducation so as to improve their quality of life.Accordingly, they pressured their mother toallow them to change religion. Three othersiblings voluntarily converted to Islam the nightbefore the entered the childcare institution,together with their mother and father.

Regarding conditions in the institution,Yasmin said that she had gradually got used toit.

“But I slowly came to accept Islam. Icompared Islam and Christianity, Islam isgood ... let’s see ... different from ... forexample, if you want to go to a service inchurch, you have to get dressed up first ...but here, what’s important is innercleanliness.”

The process of becoming a Muslim wasnot easy, admitted Yasmin, especially given thatshe knew nothing about Islam beforehand.

“After entering the childcare institution ...reading the profession of faith ... I didn’tknow anything about this ... before it wasstrict here ... there was a different person incharge ... we had to learn how to pray ...pray five times a day, if we didn’t, he’d getangry ... you could be hit ... if you missedprayer time ... but it was for a purpose ...now I know how to pray.”

As part of their education as goodMuslims, Yasmin and Zahra were slowly weanedaway from their Dayak culture. As the personin charge of the institution did not understandthe Dayak language, they were required to usethe Malay language and forbidden fromspeaking Dayak. Regarding the way in whichthe childcare institution was run, Yasmin said


page

224

that under the previous head, the regime hadbeen harsh, and included the use of physicalviolence.

“ ... hit by Mr. X as his child had fallen ... wehad all been invited to go to an event ... thechild was playing on the stairs, no one waswatching him ... in the end, all of the childrenwere slapped one by one ... he asked everyone... where were you ... we were in the bathroom,Sir ... “…Everyone was slapped.

Violence was also resorted to as part ofthe religious conversion process.

“Before you had to really read the prayers... they don’t pay so much attention now ...you can make a few mistakes ... but before... there were 28 children ... all of us had togather together to study the Koran ... theolder children taught the younger children ...before there were about 98 converts ... onlyabout 3 or 4 Muslims ... if you couldn’t readit, they’d get angry ... shout at you ... orderyou to learn it off by heart, really learn it ...but shouting isn’t too bad.”

“You’d be slapped until it left a mark onyour behind ... with a hose ... it would leavered marks ... when I couldn’t read theprayers, I was hit till my behind hurt ... ifyou couldn’t do it, they’d make you do 20“squat jumps” ... normally because youcouldn’t read the prayers fluently.”

The children were not only subjected tophysical violence. Following the change in theleadership of the childcare institution, the newhead also subjected the children to emotionalviolence.

‘I cry a lot here, Miss ... the same with allthe children ... before, they used to call ourparents names. (One of the care staff)called my parents pigs. What she said wasreally upsetting ... I don’t know what to say...’ (interview had to be suspended as thechild was crying).

Besides the violence they experienced,Yasmin and Zahar, like children in otherinstitutions, rarely met with their parents. Overa period of 9 years, they only received fourvisits, two telephone calls and a letter. They

also only received permission to go home 3times. The first time that they visited homewas after five years, and this was only permittedbecause one of their parents was sick. WhenYasmin and Zahar visited home the last time,during the school holidays in July, to see theirsick father, their mother almost didn’t knowthem, and was almost unable to tell them apartas both were already big and were wearingMuslim headscarves. Their visit home had alsobeen delayed by one day as they had to gettheir school reports first. This had greatly upsettheir mother as she was afraid they would notin fact be coming home. She had cried so hardthat she eventually collapsed. The fact that theyso rarely returned home also meant that theyno longer knew their elder brothers andyounger sibling, who lived in Singkawang. Thisyounger sibling had only once been in contactwith them by telephone since they had goneto the childcare institution. The same appliedto their two elder brothers who had remainedat home: they also hardly knew the two girlsafter so many years.

The problem of children not coming homefor long periods is a common one, particularlyamong those who have been converted toIslam and come from Sintang. The childcareinstitution’s own policy regarding home visitsis unclear. While the head of the institutionsays that children are free to go home at anytime, the manager and his wife say that childrenare forbidden to return home, save in pressingcircumstances, such as an illness in the family.

Besides the case of Yasmin and Zahar, thelack of opportunities for home visits is alsoapparent from the case of siblings Tina and Nur,who have not been home at all during thecourse of the 9 years they have been in thechildcare institution. Similarly in the case ofthree other siblings who have only been homeonce during the five years they have been inthe institution. The main reason for their notreturning home is the refusal by the Managerto grant permission for fear that they willinfluenced by non-Muslims as was also the casefor Yasmin and Zahar. In fact, the siblings wereonly informed that their mother had died amonth after the event had happened. In that


page

225

case, the distance from Pontianak to Upid (theSintang interior, where the siblings come from)also prevents them from going home, as wellas the fact that they now have a differentreligion to their parents. The cost of a one-way journey for each of them amounts to someRp 300,000 (USD 30), and the journey takes afull day and night. However, the childcareinstitution only gives the children a week forhome visits. Another child, R. has been in thechildcare institution for 9 years, and has onlyreturned home to visit her parents twice. Shedidn’t even return home when her fatherpassed away due to the distance involved.

Besides the various reasons outlinedabove, another issue that discourages childrenfrom returning home is the vast difference inliving standards between what they are usedto in the childcare institution and what theyexperience in their parents’ houses. In Yasmin’scase, for example, the modern conditions shewas used to in the Pontianak childcareinstitution were far removed from the basicconditions in which her parents lived in herhome village. Thus, it is only to be expectedthat she was unpleasantly surprised when shewent home.

“It was ... really different ... in the village,you sleep on ... here, you sleep onmattresses, but there you have to sleep ontilam (thin carpets) ... together with mum.”

A similar account was related by N (alsoa convert to Islam), who said that she was loathto go home as her home lacks electricity, lights,and comfortable beds.

What was particularly surprising was thatparents also often advised their children notto return home on a regular basis. In Yasminand Zahar’s case, their father had actually askedthe two girls not to come home as he wasafraid they would change religion again. Yasminsaid that their father had previously been aMuslim, but had changed his religion in orderto marry her mother. As a result of his regretsover his change of religion, their father hadresolved that the two girls would becomeMuslims, which explained why they had beensent to the childcare institution in the firstplace. According to Yasmin, her father and unclewere well aware that the two girls would beconverted to Islam at the childcare institutionin Pontianak.

hard to reconnect to their own communitiesand families once they leave the institution. Itwas clear from the research that the lack ofimportance attached to children’s relationswith their families and communities on the partof the childcare institutions also impacted onthe way these institutions viewed children’sneed to maintain and develop a personal andsocial identity. This is despite that fact that beingrooted within a particular socio-culturalcontext will play a major role in the life of thatchild once they grow up and move out of theinstitutions to live their adult lives in thecommunity.

Supervision and Sanctions

As we saw earlier, punishment was foundto be something that was inextricably linked

to the way the institutions operated and tothe staffs’ understanding of their roles. All ofthe institutions applied various rules governingdiscipline, “picket” duty, and the range of otherobligations that children were expected tocomply with. The children were required tolive by these rules, and to expect to be punishedif they did not. As a result being monitoredand controlled was an inherent part ofchildren’s daily lives in the institutions.

While the rules and regulations differedfrom one childcare institution to another, ingeneral, all of them, whether written or not,consisted of the following elements:

l Rules on picket duty (daily chores),governing the work that the children wererequired to do, such as preparing food,


page

226

cleaning the rooms, cleaning thedormitories, tidying up the yard, and soforth. Every child was given his or herown picket schedule and was required toperform the duties roistered inaccordance. If the boy or girl failed to doso, he or she would be punished. Otherobligations could include babysitting orcleaning the house of the foster/sponsorparents as in Huke Ina or the head of theinstitution or pesantren as in Ibnu Taimyiahfor example.

l The obligation to perform religious duties,including the prayers for Muslims,participating in Koranic studies, fasting,going to the mosque, etc. The childrenwould be punished if they failed to do anyof these things, or even if they were late.This was particularly the case in the Islam-based religious institutions whoseobjectives it was to groom cadres for theirparent organizations. If children found itdifficult to rise for the Tahajud prayers at3 a.m., for example, they would be dousedwith dirty water.

l Total prohibition on dating, stealing,smoking, going out at night, lying, truancy,fighting, and going out without permission.Violations of these rules normally resultedin the most severe sanctions, includingexpulsion.

l The children in a number of institutionswere also subject to punishment forcoming home from school late, leavingwithout permission, getting up late, or evenbeing late for meals. In one childcareinstitution in Maluku, the children wererequired to turn up for cooking duties, andwould be scolded if they failed to do so,even though they were also required tobe at school at the same time.

l In Huke Ina in Maluku, the children werealso required to come in the top 10 intheir class. A child who failed to do sowould be warned that he or she could beexpelled from the institution. Accordingto the children, this threat was employedto maintain the position of the institutionas a model childcare institution.

The rules had generally been made by thestaff/managers and had been in place for manyyears. Children were almost never involved inthe development of the rules or the sanctions.While in some institutions the rules andregulations were written up, in others theywere passed on orally or simply understood.In Lohoraung in North Sulawesi for example,there were no written rules setting outpunishment. Everything was in the hands of theManager of the institution. However, if a childdid commit a violation, all of the children wouldbe punished by not being given food. In Patmos,the children were informed orally beforehandabout the rules, for example, the requirementto rise at 05:30, to attend morning worship,and regarding bed time.

If the children broke the rules, they wouldbe subjected to sanctions, ranging from whatwere deemed mild sanctions to more severeones, depending on the nature of theinfringement. From the interviews with thechildren, it was found that among thepunishments that had been imposed on themwere the following:

l Oral sanctions – being summoned by amember of staff/manager for the purposeof receiving a reprimand and warning notto repeat the offence. Such sessions usuallyinvolved giving advice to the child often inthe form of religious or spiritual guidancebut sometimes it also involved threats,calling names, menacing looks, shoutingand scolding in an effort to frighten thechild.

l Physical punishment, such as pinching,tweaking of ears, hitting, caning, or evenshaving of the head, as happened to a childat the Darul Aitam home who persistentlyfailed to go up to the “Mushola”. In anumber of childcare institutions childrenwere not only slapped with the hand, butalso using rattan rods. Children in IbnuTamiyah explained, “the worst thing you cando is smoke ... if they find out, you’ll get caned... smoking is strictly forbidden here ... so aredrugs and things like that ... if they find out,you’ll get caned hard ... some of the kids smokeand aren’t able to stop it ... they end up getting


page

227

expelled by the head ... because that’s therules ... caning all depends on Ustad X... kidsnormally get caned on the hands or legs witha rattan rod.” Other physical punishmentsincluded the assigning of additional workor increasing the number of activities thatthe child was required to do. For example,saying Muslim ritual prayers 10 times, or100 times in the yard, as a child in aninstitution in NTB was ordered to do. InMuhammadiyah Lhoksemawe, one childhad been slapped twice, on the right andleft cheeks, as he left Koranic studywithout permission. Another child hadbeen ordered to say 10 “rokaat” (ritualprayers) in the volleyball court forforgetting to say the Sunat Rawatib prayers.According to the children, a child had oncebeen ordered to say 100 “rokaat” forturning up late for prayers.

l Other sanctions included being deniedbreakfast, being denied food, and beingordered to stand out in the midday sun.In Darul Ulum for example, a child hadbeen ordered to stand out in the sun for15 minutes at 11 a.m. for speakingAcehnese. The children were only allowedto speak English or Arabic. Other childrenhad also been ordered to do the same orhad been slapped with rattan rods.

l If a child was found to be engaged in arelationship with the opposite sex, he orshe would be ordered to severe therelationship, or might even be sent hometo his or her parents. In Nurul Ikhlas, onechild recounted, “H also went home whenthey found out she was dating a village boy.The boyfriend turned up here and that’s howIbu (the manager) found out.”

l In the case of repeat offences or offencesthat were deemed serious, the child wouldbe expelled.

The sanctions were imposed on both boysand girls and were the official way of controllingchildren in the institutions rather than theresult of individual responses or initiatives bysome staff to what they felt were children outof control. In one of the Governmentinstitutions, a manager summarised the

approach as follows: “We’re here to punish you.If you don’t want to be punished, don’t break therules.”

While generally girls and boys receivedsimilar punishments, in some institutions staffsaw the need for a different approach to girlsviolating rules. The head of a childcareinstitution in Central Java explained that,

“Looking after girls is different as they usetheir feelings. If you’re too harsh with them,they’ll think of you as their enemy. But ifyou’re too soft, you’ll spoil them and they’lllose respect for you. So you’ve still got to be“tough”, and sometimes treat them as youwould your own kids. You don’t have to lovekids. All kids are different – some need tobe tweaked and shouted at. It all dependson the child. Stubborn kids also need to bescolded as this is in their best interests.”

Similarly in Darul Hikmah, a staff explainedthe approach “For the boys, we can punish themby making then do push ups, or drenching them inwater. For the girls, we just give them a talking to.”

Upholding of discipline was viewed by thestaff/managers as part of the educationalprocess, and essential to achieving the goals ofthe institution and ensuring the success of thechildren. Among the different types ofdisciplinary practices used were the following:

l Night time assembly: This was orderedfor example in Pamardi Utomo at 9 p.m.everyday as the children were preparingto go to bed. They were lined in front ofthe institution and counted one by one.This institution actually worked with thelocal military command so as to build upcharacter and inculcate discipline, neatnessand responsibility in the children. This waseven reflected in the way the children wererequired to arrange their bathingrequisites, sandals, blankets, clothes, andso forth. A number of governmentinstitutions adopted this rather militaristicapproach to discipline.

l Requiring the children to be back in theinstitution by a certain time usually straightafter school and in the few institutionswere they were allowed out again, therewere rules about having to be back before


page

228

a certain time, on average, at 9 p.m. Therestrictions on the children being out wereimposed to control when the children hadto be back in the institution, when theyfinished studying, and when they wererequired to go to bed.

l In one institution, children were placed inisolation as a disciplinary measure.According to one child, offenders couldbe placed in isolation for up to 7 monthsuntil they graduated. The child commented,“How could you stand being in isolation for 7months. I would be better in prison. I’d justrun away.”4

l Case conferencing: At first sight, this wouldappear to imply a discussion on a caseinvolving a child. In reality, however, thistended to be a disciplinary practiceinvolving the administration of punishmentor admonition. In one childcare institutionin West Kalimantan for example, a childrecounted, “All of the staff were assembled,all of them talk and shout, tell you what to do.It’s really embarrassing. Then some of thestaffs summon you again on your own.”

l The admission process and “orientation”upon entering the childcare institution.This process as we have seen in theProfessional Practice Section was focusedalmost entirely on ‘laying down the law’with the child and sometimes his or herparents, with the children being informedof the rules, prohibitions, obligations of thechildren and procedures governing life inthe institution.

l The staged disciplinary process. Sanctionswere normally imposed immediatelyhowever, in some cases, advice andadmonitions were used first beforepunishment was imposed. If the offencewas repeated, the offender would besubject to a more severe penalty, likeexpulsion or the shaving of the head. Onechild in Darul Aitam explained the process,“If someone breaks the rules, he or she willbe punished in accordance with Islam.” Thegirl then continued: “She’ll be summonedand talked to first. This will happen a total of

3 times. If she still does something wrong, she’llbe expelled.”

The various sanctions and punishmentsapplied were invariably justified in terms ofmaking sure the children would become “good”and “obedient” children. Violation of the rules‘could not be tolerated’. The reasons whychildren continued to violate the rules despitethe heavy sanctions almost never seemed tobecome an issue for staff. The natural tendencyof children to break rules fulfils an importantfunction in the process of socialisation ofchildren including by enabling them to expresstheir creativity, bravery, and independence,while at the same time making them aware ofmistakes – teaching what is acceptable andwhat is not acceptable. The emphasis by theinstitutions on children being controlled andobedient meant that there was very little spaceleft for children to try things, explore and makemistakes. The upholding of discipline in thechildcare institutions was also heavily relianton the use of violence in the form of physicalviolence and emotional violence. While thethreat of punishment may result, in the shortterm, in a child’s compliance, it also teachesthat boy or girl some worrying lessons aboutthe use of power and violence. It is also likelyto affect his or her sense of security andconfidence, thus diminishing the willingness toexplore as a result of being continually afraidof doing something wrong and being punishedfor it.


page

229

One advance that was reported by thechildren was that physical punishment was nolonger used in a government childcareinstitution in Aceh. According to the children,“Now they don’t hit us anymore ... everywhere,not just in the institution ... the government said ithas to be this way.”

In fact, some of the staff including themanager of this childcare institution hadparticipated in a seminar on the new childprotection law and had become aware thatphysical punishment was not allowed. Thechildren said that previously, physicalpunishment had been dished out in almostmilitary fashion. Change was also apparent inanother government institution in NTB, wherethe new head had refused to condone theslapping and hitting of the children.

Children seemed to have come to acceptpunishment as part of their daily lives. Theywere well aware what the punishments were,usually as a result of seeing other childrenreceiving similar punishments. Some of thechildren said that they deserved thepunishments they received for violating therules. “If you do something wrong, you’ll getpunished,” said a child who said he could notstop going out with girls. One child in Acehstated: “If you’re in the wrong, then no problem,you’ll get slapped or hit.” A child in Maluku said:“The children in the institution have to obey therules of the institution. If they don’t, then they shouldjust get out. For example, kids going home withoutpermission. All of the rules here are for the good ofthe children.”

In that regard, punishment had clearly beenexplained to children in terms of what was‘good for them’ and some of the children hadcome to believe that and even to expect it.One child in Muhammadiyah Lhoksemawestated, “If we do wrong, it doesn’t matter if we getslapped or hit”. Similarly a child in Darul Aitamexplained, “I don’t want to break the rules. Therules are also for my own good. If I break them, Iam ready to be punished.”

Children in Al Hidayah in Maluku alsoperceived punishment as something which wasreasonable, “The punishment meted out by thecarers before was reasonable as the children would

always have done something wrong. Children wouldbe punished for not telling the truth, for cominghome late, not seeking permission from the carers,not going to prayers, getting up late.”. A child inNur Ilahi even referred to the physicalpunishment imposed by a previous staff whowas removed from his post as a result of it, ashaving had some positive impact, “The way P5educated us, we became smarter…plenty of usdid well at school. Now with the new staff, thegrades are not so good.”

Nevertheless, when faced with physicalpunishment, constant scolding or what theyfelt were unfair or arbitrary sanctions, childrenfelt afraid, often angry and also felt sympathyfor the children who had been subjected tosuch punishments. This was particular the casefor those who faced the most severepunishments, in particular expulsion as itentailed an end to their education. In thosecases, children often found themselvesconfused and left with very few options whenconfronted with some of the most severepunishments. For example, one child in WestKalimantan who was found to have a boyfriendwas forced to choose one of threepunishments: (1) staying in the childcareinstitution but being placed in isolation; (2)being sent back to her parents and being forcedto leave school; or (3) get married. The childwas confused and distressed by these options,and there was no one she could speak to. Whenshe spoke to the staff, they just told her itwould be better if she went home.

Generally though, children felt that therewas nothing they could do other than acceptthe punishments. They felt unable to protest.Their sadness and anger could only beexpressed to a friend, or to the assessor duringthe course of this survey.

“Don’t ask, Miss. They’re a hard breed. Thepeople here have no feelings. They don’tunderstand what we want. The more youcurtail and restrict the children here, theharder they’ll struggle. Just look around,”said one child.

Some children, however, just shrugged offthe threat of punishment. One child quotedthe institution’s manager as saying: “If you can’t


page

230

obey the rules here, just get your things and gohome. The door’s wide open” he then added. “Itupsets us but it only goes in one ear and out ofthe other.”

The children in a number of institutionssaid that they wanted to be treated properly– if they did something wrong, they should bespoken to in a familial manner. According to achild in one institution in Central Java,

“For the children living in an institution, itshould be like a family ... you should be ableto speak, should be able to say what iswrong. But they say nothing. They neverapologize to the children. If they wouldexplain things and apologize, the childrenwould be ready to do the same. In reality,the kids love the Ibu (the manager), butshe’s so ... If she’s wrong and explains thingsto us, we would understand. Theenvironment in the institution should be likea family, we should be able to discusseverything.”

Children showed different reactions to thesanctions imposed on them, some appearingwilling to accept the punishment as somethinginevitable or even something which they wereresponsible for, others saying they would liketo see a more respectful way of resolvingbreaches of the rules. One thing that wascommon to virtually all institutions, however,was that children’s views and feelings aboutthe rules imposed on them and the punishmentthey face for breaching those rules, were neverdiscussed with them and the managers of theseinstitutions never reviewed the rules and thesanctions they imposed on children to considertheir impact, their effectiveness or theirsuitability.

Children’s Voices

The voices of the children in the form ofviews, opinions and advice were rarely heardin almost all of the childcare institutionssurveyed. The often distant relations betweenthe children and the staff tended to limit theopportunities for children to be asked theirviews or to be able to express their opinions.There were also frequent statements and

actions on the part of the staff and managerswhich indicated that they considered thepossibility of listening to the children’s viewsas impractical or even absurd. Children weregenerally considered incapable of voicingopinions or if they were asked it wassometimes assumed that they would ask forunreasonable things.

It was also clear that children generallydid not expect to be consulted or provided anopportunity to express their views. When poorservices were received,, they tended to acceptthis, or take the view that receiving aneducation was too important to jeopardize.One of the girls in Darul Hikmah commented,

“We wouldn’t dare criticize, Miss. Weaccept whatever we get ... what’s importantis that we can go to school.”

The fact that children often bottled uptheir feelings became apparent during thisresearch, when the children availed of the visitsof the assessors to finally voice their feelings.Leaving the institutions was often difficult forboth the assessors and, particularly, the childrenas for once in their lives, even if only for 3 or 4days, they had adults that actually listened tothem and to whom they could talk to openly.

Only a few of the childcare institutionsallowed the children to express their opinions.The children at Al Amin said they were able toexpress themselves during forums with themanagers. Among the matters that could bediscussed were food and school issues. Similarforums were held at Muhammadiyah Cilacap,while the managers at Prajapati would holddiscussions with the children although thesetended to revert principally to issues relatingto school, the rules of the institutions orreligious teachings. Children also wouldgenerally only be expected to respond toquestions by adults rather actually be given anopportunity to speak outright. In PamardiUtomo, while it was said that children werefree to give their opinions to the manager, itseemed in practice that children were mainlyonly able to make suggestions about food.

In many instances it seemed thatcommunication between staff and children


page

231

were limited to problems, what children haddone wrong or more general discussions aboutthe importance of religious practice andteaching and of children behaving well, lovingone another and studying hard. As one assessorhighlighted in the context of the discussionsbetween the staff and children in DharmaLaksana,

“Even though the children are asked todiscuss things, it’s not to criticize the servicesthey receive. Rather it’s more about a dialogand to explain things. Usually this is aboutbehaviour or comments or language that isunacceptable in the institution. Like the casesof children who want to go home or who don’twant to do picket duty. The results of thesediscussions are not recorded.”

There was little opportunity it seemed,for children to actually talk about the thingsthat mattered to them.

In Ibnu Taimiyah in West Kalimantan whichoperates both a childcare institution and apesantren, a council of the pesantren students(OPPPIT), headed by the more senior childrenand young people, was used to support childrenparticipating in the running of the institutionand even providing them with opportunitiesto make their voices heard. The institution sawOPPPIT’s role as enabling children to expresstheir views and complaints. In practice however,the children felt that this was merely a vehicleto help in the implementation of the adult’sdecisions. According to them, OPPPIT was onlyinvolved in carrying out activities which wereset out by the institution and really only helpedthe ‘work of the institution’ including byorganising children for the domestic choresor for the religious practice, and even bycarrying out the punishments in some cases.Children outside of OPPPIT also felt that therewas little room for children to actually influencethe way it operated. As one child explained, “...you’re not allowed to make up your own mind.Everything is decided by the OPPPIT. We just haveto go along.”

The situation was markedly differentthough in a few of the institutions. In Dr. J. Lukasand SOS Desa Taruna, the children wereallowed to express opinions about food, health

issues, free-time activities, punishment, and thecare they were receiving. In SOS however,children were not able to express their viewsabout contact and visits to their families asthis was already decided by the institution.

A more intensive and confidential processwas encouraged by the founder and head ofNur Ilahi in West Kalimantan. According tothe children, the head of the institution wouldfrom time to time conduct evaluations bysummoning the children one by one andquestioning them about conditions in theinstitution, whether there was anything amiss,the conduct of the staff, and whether therewas anything the children needed,

“Through these procedures, the childrencan voice complaints about, for example, abroken toilet lock, or a broken closet in theroom. According to the children, the institutionhead would then immediately take action basedon the children’s complaints, such as repairingthe broken lock or arranging a reconciliationbetween two quarrelling children.”

The head of the institution’s assistantwould also record what the children had tosay during the discussions. This made thechildren feel closer to the head of theinstitution, even though he only visited onceevery month or two months. The previousmanager had also been dismissed by thefounder after complaints of physical violencefrom children indicating that the founder wasserious about taking into consideration thechildren’s views. At the same time, it was clearduring the research that the children still feltunable to report to the founder theinappropriate behaviour being carried out bysome of the staff at this time.

Other than the above instances, therewere no procedures or forums by which thechildren could voice their opinions in thechildcare institutions surveyed. Neither werethere any procedures for recording the viewsexpressed by the children. Apart from NurIlahi, none of the childcare institutions had anyprocedure or process through which thechildren could express their opinions inconfidence. Quiet or withdrawn children werealso not encouraged to express their views.


page

232

The following comment by a child from SuciHati in Aceh was quite representative: “Thechildren here aren’t brave enough to say what theywant.” The fact that the children were notencouraged to express their opinions to adultswas clearly felt in some of the institutions.Children in these institutions tended to bewithdrawn, shy and in some cases evenintroverted. They seemed not accustomed tobeing asked their views or to express themeven on an informal basis. The unwillingness ofthe children to express their views could havealso been influenced by other factors such asfear of punishment or retaliation for speakingout, particularly in institutions with strictdisciplinarian systems. One of the rules whichchildren were required to follow in the majorityof the institutions was to ‘maintain the goodname of the institution’ which seemed ofteninterpreted to mean not criticising or speakingof problems in the institution. This was clearlyillustrated by the case of Ana in WestKalimantan narrated earlier in this report. (SeeSection II, Life Story No 1.)

In one case, children did express theirdiscontent with the situation in the institutionhowever. Children wrote 21 letters to expresstheir disappointment and concerns over thesituation in their institution in relation to thepayment of their school fees and what theyfelt was humiliating treatment by the new headof their institution. The letters were sent tothe Head of the Office of Social Affairs at theProvincial level. One of the positive aspects ofthis case was that the Office of Social Affairsshowed concern and responded by sending ateam to the institution to meet with thechildren and the head of the institution. As aresult, the Office of Social Affairs gave the headof the institution 3 months to rectify the matter.Shortly afterwards payment of school feesresumed but the relations between the Headand the children did not really improve. In fact,the head of the institution immediatelyafterwards tried to ascertain which childrenhad written the letters. One child explainedthat she was called up by her and asked, “Whowrote this letter? I think you know, are you tryingto take revenge on me?”

It seems that since the incident she haskept asking about it and reminding childrenabout it, As one child pointed out, “Even thoughit was a long time ago, it keeps getting brought upor mentioned to the children.”

Children seemed also aware that nomatter what they said, all decisions remainedin the hands of the staff/managers. One childin an institution in Aceh said,

“The children don’t run the show here.There’s no way you can challenge the vetoof the staff members. There’s no way youcan protest. It’s accepted as long as it’sgood for us. The children here no longerdare to object. Before, one kid sent ananonymous letter, but he was expelled.”One staff explained it like this, “Thechildren who were here before sent in ananonymous letter, and it was put under thedoor of the office. It talked about the food,the staff and problems of the children. We(the managers and staff) discussed itamong ourselves. If possible, we try toaccede to their wishes. If it’s not possible,then it doesn’t happen.”

However, the latest intake of children didnot dare to protest.

Under-5s and Small Children

In the 36 childcare institutions surveyed,18 children (7 boys and 11 girls) were underthe age of 5. Three of these children were inSOS Desa Taruna in Central Java, two in SayapKasih, three in Dorkas, three in Prajapati, threein Al Muthadien in North Sulawesi, one in NurulIklhas and three in Ina Theresia in Maluku. Theyoungest child, 2 months of age, was in SOSDesa Taruna in Central Java. The presence ofunder-5s in the institutions was due to the factthat, as we saw earlier, a few of the institutionsactually selected children in as young aspossible as this made them easier to manageas they had not been exposed to ‘outsideinfluences’. In the case of Al Muthadien however,the two children under-5s living there had beenhanded over by their parents as they wereunable to look after them as a result of financialconstraints. Both children were being cared for


page

233

by one staff. The other child is the son of thehead of the institution who is registered as achild in the care of the institution.

The presence of under-5s in a residentialinstitution means that the institution inquestion needs to be equipped to providespecial care for them and attend to the physicaland emotional needs of children who are atcritical stages of development. In SOS DesaTaruna, which applies the “cottage” model, witha “foster mother” in each of the 14 houses,the under-5s received individual care as besidesthe foster mother in each house, there werealso four “Aunts” (trainee foster mothers) whotook turns in helping to look after the children.The foster families charged with looking afterthe under-5s were prioritized for additionalhelp from the “Aunts”. The three under-5s inSOS Desa Taruna received regular medicalexaminations, were regularly weighed andreceived supplemental food. These activitieswere conducted on a monthly basis by SOSDesa Taruna and were also aimed at thechildren living in the vicinity of the institution.Milk was also provided for the under-5s, andthey all received their scheduledimmunizations.

In other childcare institutions, such asPrajapati (which housed three under-5s), nospecial care was provided for the under-5s. Theolder children were charged with looking afterthe under-5s, including bathing and feedingthem. If a child fell sick, he would be broughtto the doctor in the main town Tomohon, sometwo kilometres away. According to the Doctorthere, “If the children from the institution are sick,they are brought here by a member of staff ... asregards their illnesses, they normally suffer fromupper respiratory tract infections ... we keep patientcards for them, and treat them free of charge,including medication, even though the institutionis willing to pay.” The institution also had varioustypes of play equipment and toys for thechildren, such as swings, seesaws and climbingframes, which were donated by members ofthe community.

At Ina Theresia, the three under-5s livingthere were looked after by the head of theinstitution, helped by high school-age girls from

the institution. They cared for the infants,bathed them and changed their nappies, playedwith them, fed them, put them to bed andcarried them around. The infant’s clothes werewashed by other children who were on“picket” duty. No special training was providedfor this, with the girls relying solely on instinctand experience. The food given to the childrenof 3 and 4 years of age was the same as thatgiven to the other children, while the 5 monthsold baby was fed soft rice and other soft food.All three under-5s were also given milk everyday – more frequently than the other children– and used the toilet of the nun who is thehead of the institution. The institution alsoensured that the under-5s were provided withall of their immunization.

Besides the under-5s, there were also 186small children aged between 5 and 9 (111 boysand 75 girls) distributed among 24 childcareinstitutions. On average they were in grade 1-4 of elementary school. Children of this agewere still categorized as being not entirely ableto look after themselves, and generally weregiven the task of assisting the older children inslicing vegetables, tidying the bedrooms, takingout the garbage and sweeping up in and aroundthe institution. The small children’s clothes weregenerally washed and ironed by the olderchildren until such time as the younger childrenwere able to do so themselves. The olderchildren were also responsible for looking afterthe younger children, teaching them to read,helping them with their homework, etc.

In Nur Ilahi, staff gave special attention tothe elementary school-age children as regardsto food. They made sure that the youngerchildren (in grade 1 to 3 of elementary school)received sufficient milk in accordance with theirneeds and age. They were also given mungbeans once a week. The staff would also take itupon themselves to help young children witheating problems by providing them with “jamu”(herbal tonics) and encouraging them to eat.

As we saw earlier, the “elder-youngersibling” (“Kakak-Adik”) system was applied inall of the childcare institutions surveyed. Theyounger children addressed the older childrenas “Kakak” (elder sibling), while the older


page

234

children addressed the younger ones as “adik”(younger sibling). Despite the fact that instancesof bullying were identified in some institutions,relations between the younger and olderchildren were generally close. The olderchildren, depending on their age and capacity,were given responsibility to look after, guide,supervise and discipline the younger childrenso as to ensure they followed the daily activitiesand obeyed the institution’s rules. Roomsaccommodating 3 to 4 children would normallybe assigned to a combination of children ofelementary school, junior high school and highschool age so as to facilitate the care andsupervision of the younger children by theirelder peers. The role played by the olderchildren in this regard greatly facilitated therunning of the institution and the work of thestaff whose number were generally not enoughand usually held a number of roles and positionsin the institution or community.

It was particularly concerning to find suchyoung children in an institutional careenvironment where conditions were, in mostcases, clearly not appropriate for children atthese crucial stages of development. The lackof appropriate adults to provide not only the

care but also to form the secure attachmentsthat are well evidenced to be essential for achild’s full physical, psychological and socialdevelopment during that critical period,highlight either a serious lack of understandingof children’s needs or that these needs did notconstitute the basis on which care decisionswere made.

In that context it is worth pointing thatnone of the institutions assessed which caredfor infants and young children seemed to haveconsidered the possibility of placing these veryyoung children up for adoption, if they had noparents or their families were not willing tocare for them, or fostering them with kins orin an alternative family. In SOS Desa Taruna,these infants were deemed to have alreadybeen ‘adopted’ by the SOS family and the headof the institution clearly felt that adoption orfostering by a family in the community was notan option. The fact that no system is in place inIndonesia to ensure that babies and youngchildren are provided appropriate alternativecare in a family environment also underlinesthe urgent need for the regulation of thealternative care system.

Footnotes:1 Islamic religious event organized by an individual or family, which involves praying, reading verses from the Koran,

and a ceremonial feast.2 Interview with childcare institution head.3 ‘Muhrim’ is a restriction under Islamic law whereby contact between males and females which are not blood relations

is not allowed. For example, a male and a female who are not blood related or married cannot be in the same room,shake hand or touch in anyway. This also applies to children who have reached puberty.

4 At that time, A4 was in grade 3 of Vocational High School No. 6. He had seven more months left until graduation,and had been in the childcare institution for 2.5 years.

“Someone That Matters” | XI. Staffing

page

235

XI. Staffing

Recruitment and Selection

THE PATTERN OF RECRUITMENT and selection of managers, staffs, caregivers andvolunteers differed between government and private childcare institutions. In the governmentinstitutions, specific recruitment and selection processes were not gone through. Rather, staffmembers were assigned by the provincial or district/municipality social affairs office, as confirmedby a letter of appointment. The childcare institutions themselves were not provided with theopportunity of selecting their own staff, and were unable to object to appointments, even if theappointees lacked the skills necessary for employment in a childcare institution. Appointment toa childcare institution was found not to be a popular career move among civil servants, asadmitted by the head of one institution, “Being sent here is like being dumped. Not much regard ishad to (qualifications), anyone will do. Maybe they prefer to send them here than to clutter up the place... just give them to here!”


page

236

The assignment of additional temporarystaff that might be needed by a childcareinstitution appeared to be carried out primarilyon an “informal” basis. Such temporary staffmembers would be paid transportationexpenses and a small allowance. The numberof temporary staff deployed would depend onthe needs and financial circumstances of eachinstitution. In one institution, a husband andwife team had been recruited, with their wagesbeing combined so as to bring them up to thelevel of the local minimum wage. Anotherchildcare institution had recruited two siblingsto work together.

The majority of private childcareinstitutions did not have any form of systematicrecruitment process. If a member of staff wasto be recruited, normal recruitment processes,such as submission of application letter,curriculum vitae, and references, and the sittingof an interview and tests, would rarely befollowed. Religious background, familyconsiderations, the ready availability ofvolunteers and lack of funds to employproperly qualified people resulted in the privatechildcare institutions eschewing formalrecruitment processes. Among the recruitmentmethods employed by the private childcareinstitutions surveyed were the following:

l Reliance on persons with religious orhumanitarian vocations, whether from theparent organization or the community;

l Conducting recruitment based on familyties or acquaintance with childcareinstitution managers or staff. For example,the recruitment of a staff member wife asa caregiver or as a cook, or, in the case ofDr. J. Lukas, the recruitment of financiallycomfortable married couples to serve asfoster parents as part of the cottage modelof childcare.

l Closed recruitment, such as contactingpersons who known to them and who areknown to want to serve in the institution.

l Appointing community leaders, or, in thecase of NTB, teachers to serve as headsor managers of the institutions.

l Requiring high school graduates from theinstitution to work for a year after

graduation, or recruiting former wardswho are willing to work in the institution.This pattern of recruitment is based onthe belief that these children are familiarwith the institution and its administrativeprocesses so that it will be easier for themto manage the children.

l Appointment of managers for prolonguedperiods of time, such as an initial 3 or 5years and then reappointing automaticallyafter the expiry of their 3 or 5 year terms.

l The executives of the parent foundationsimultaneously serve as managers of thechildcare institution, with caregivers andcooks being recruited from outside.

l Direct appointment of a childcareinstitution manager by the head of thefoundation. The manager may perform hisduties on his own, or be helped by his wife.

l Recruitment based on the rules of theparent organization. For example, the staffin childcare institution run by Hidayatullahare determined by the Hidayatullah centraloffice. Staff members may be appointedto any Hidayatullah childcare institutionin Indonesia.

The criteria for the recruitment of staff,particularly in private childcare institutions,were primarily focused on such considerationsas religion, vocation, willingness to serve thecommunity and to volunteer etc. Littleattention was paid to such criteria asknowledge in the fields of child development,child care and child protection, social workskills or knowledge. In SOS Desa Taruna, thecriteria for selection as a foster mother wereas follows: between 25 and 40 years of age,minimum of junior high school education,unmarried, divorced or widowed, and nodependent children. The fact that only womenwithout children or husband were selected wasapparently to ensure that they would focus allof their energies on looking after their fosterchildren and avoiding preferential treatment oftheir own children. Some other childcareinstitutions stressed historical aspects, suchinvolvement in the background/struggle of theinstitution (Al Ikhlas), specific religious


page

237

knowledge (Ibnu Tamiyah), or a willingness toserve and to be moved to childcare institutionsin different locations.

Minimum educational attainments weregenerally not required. The educational levelsof the 378 staff members interviewed in 36childcare institutions are shown in the followingtable:

Almost half of all respondents (45%) weresenior high school graduates. If we add thisfigure to those for elementary school andjunior high school, then 59% or 3 out of 5were educated up to senior high school levelor under. From the data, it would appear thathigher educational attainments were notconsidered necessary for employment in achildcare institution. Nevertheless, a total of27% of respondents were educated toDiploma/ Degree or Master’s levels (D4/S1 orS2). If we add the percentage of respondentseducated to these levels, we can see that 40%of the staff had tertiary level education.

Not all of the childcare institutionsemployed respondents educated to tertiaryeducation level. The childcare institution withthe highest number of staff members educatedto this level was Darul Ulum Munawarrah inAceh, where 13 staff members had tertiarylevel qualifications. Other institutions with ahigh percentage of university graduates wereSOS Desa Taruna and Muhammadiyah inCentral Java (5 each), Pamardi Utomo

(government institution, 4 university graduates),Harapan (government institution), DharmaLaksana and Darul Aitam in NTB (both with4), Dr. J. Lukas in North Sulawesi (5), AlMuthadien (5), and Dorkas (3). The tworespondents with master’s degrees wereemployed by Dharma Laksana in NTB andMuhammadiyah Meulaboh.

In Maluku, more respondents had tertiarylevel qualifications than those with senior highschool qualifications. All of the childcareinstitutions in Maluku had staff educated toD4/S1 level, with the biggest number beingemployed by Nurul Ikhlas (9 out of 25 staffmembers, with 5 being graduates of teacher-training college). Next came Huke Ina(government institution with 8 out of 12 staffmembers, with 5 trained as social workers), AlHidayah (4 out of 9 staff members), and CalebHouse (2 out of 7 staff members). Conversely,the province with the least number of D4/S1graduates was West Kalimantan, with only 9tertiary level staff employed by childcareinstitutions there, 3 of whom worked for agovernment institution (UPRS).

From the above data, it will be seen thatgovernment institutions tended to employmore staff members with university levelqualifications, while among the private childcareinstitutions, only those run by majororganizations, such as Muhammadiyah, SOSDesa Taruna or those that had educationalestablishment attached to the institution, such

Table 8. Educational Attainments

Key: PS: Primary school, JHS: Junior high school, SHS: Senior high school, D1-D3: Diploma 1 - Diploma 3, D4-S1:Diploma 4/Bachelor’s Decree, S2: Master’s Degree

Educational Level

Province PS JHS SHS D1–D3 D4/S1 S2

NAD 3 10 40 5 22 1Central Java 3 8 36 8 18 0NTB 1 1 27 14 15 1West Kalimantan 4 8 17 7 9 0North Sulawesi 2 4 29 4 14 0Maluku 6 3 21 12 25 0 Total 19 34 170 50 103 2% 5 8.99 44.97 13 27.25 0.5


page

238

as Darul Ulum Munawarrah in Aceh and DarulAitam in NTB, employed staff educated to thislevel.

One of the educational criteria for staffstated in the Government guidelines forchildcare institutions is a background in socialwork. The guidelines require a ratio of 1 socialworker for 5 children. Based on the data onthe respondents with D4/S1 and S2qualifications, it will be seen that they had awide variety of educational backgrounds, asshown by the following chart:

The above chart shows that only 16respondents out of 105 with D4/S1 and S2qualifications possessed backgrounds in socialwork/social welfare. Of this figure, 10 wereemployed by government childcare institutions,namely, Huke Ina Maluku (5), Harapan NTB (2),

and UPRS in West Kalimantan (3). Theremainder were employed by a total of 4private childcare institutions. Instead themajority of respondents possessedbackgrounds in teaching (40%). Besides thisbeing explained by the fact that many of thechildcare institutions were combined withschools and pesantren (12 out of the 36childcare institutions surveyed), these figuresalso once again highlight the fact that the overallobjective of the institution was understood tobe the provision of education.

The importance of religious education asa criterion for recruitment can also be seen

from the number of staff with tertiary leveleducation levels who had majored in religion(9 in the case of Islam and 4 in the case oftheology). While jointly these only account for12% of the total number of respondents, thisfigure nevertheless illustrates the importancereligion education background to the childcareinstitution. Other educational backgrounds ofthe respondents generally lacked directrelevance to the childcare sector, particularlyin the “Other” category, which consisted ofrespondents with backgrounds in agriculture,industrial engineering, civil engineering, tourism,forestry, healthcare and administration. Whilethe last two categories (healthcare andadministration) may have some relevance tochildcare, they only accounted for 3respondents. Psychology, which would be highlyrelevant to childcare, was not represented atall. These findings show that while the numberof respondents with university levelqualifications accounted for almost one-thirdof all the respondents, their educationalbackground was frequently not relevant totheir work in the childcare institutions.

The lack of appropriately trained andskilled personnel was felt by a number ofgovernment childcare institutions, even thoughthey generally had a much better staff profilethan the private institutions. The head of onechildcare institution commented: “... we’ve nostaffs who are trained in social work. None of thestaff here are appropriately qualified.” The headof the Administration Section in anotherinstitution said that the staff it received waslow quality “rejects”, with high quality staffbeing siphoned off by the provincial socialaffairs office. “We tell them what are staffing needsare, but it doesn’t work out that way. They send allthe lazy ones here. The smart ones all go there.”The head of the institution added: “We needsocial workers here. We don’t have any. It’s difficultto find social workers. While there are plenty ofsocial worker graduates from STKS (School of socialwork), none of them want to come here. TheProvincial Social Affairs Office has plenty of them.It’s this that finishes us. How are we supposed togive proper child care, one caregiver has to lookafter how many children? The childcare systemleaves a lot to be desired. The staff need to be

Graph 17 Educational Backgrounds


page

239

closer to the children. And the situation regardingpart-time staff leaves a lot to be desired.”

The recruitment process was generally notaccompanied by orientation or inductiontraining for newly recruited staff members, andtime was not set aside to familiarize them withthe institution or their duties. Rather, theylearnt what they were supposed to do on thejob. Various aspects of management, particularlythe financial aspects, were frequently keptunder close wraps by the directors and werenot shared with other staff.

The children had no role to play in decidingwho should be appointed as caregivers. Thisapplied equally to the question of reviewingthe position or replacing staff who werebehaving inappropriately or were not suitablefor the position. One child in an institution inCentral Java commented as follows: “Oh, it’s soboring, totally boring. The head has been changedand everything else has changed as a result. Thestaff who used to be close to the children havealso changed in line with the changes introducedby the new leadership.” The recruitment andreplacement of staff/managers was left entirelyup to the management of institution, and thechildren had no say in such matters.

As will be seen from the above description,standard recruitment and selection processeswere not normally applied in both ingovernment and in private childcareinstitutions. In fact, proper selection was almostnon-existent in the institutions that weresurveyed. None of them had personnel orhuman resources sections to take charge ofthe recruitment and selection staff. This maypartly have been explained by the fact thatthese childcare institutions were generally runby voluntary organizations, and staffed byvolunteers. With regard to the governmentinstitutions, it was also apparent that there wasa real lack of concern on the part of localgovernment as regards the appointment ofsuitably qualified personnel.

Specific criteria for the appointment ofstaff were generally not applied in practice.Important aspects such as qualifications,educational background, track record, andemployment experience were usually not even

taken into consideration. As a result, inadequateservices were provided to children. It isobviously unrealistic to expect optimal servicesfrom someone who lacks the necessaryqualifications, particularly when he/she is poorlypaid or even receives no remunerationwhatsoever.

Accordingly, it is not possible to concludethat the staff working in childcare institutionsfully understood the important role they weremeant to play or what their duties were. Withthe primary focus being on religion, family tiesand volunteerism, many of them wereprincipally motivated by a desire to serve thecommunity, which was translated into their dayto day duties in accordance with their positions.They focused on their jobs as cooks, caregivers,managers and educators without looking at orbeing aware of the overall context of childcare,which should have provided, in reality, thefoundation for what they did. They performedtheir day-to-day duties on a routine basiswithout having any kind of individual workplans. Even the caregivers were generallyunaware of the need for work plans or ofkeeping daily records as what they did was partof a routine, up until such time as the childrengraduated from high school.

Supervision and Support

The level of management support for staffsdiffered as between the government andprivate childcare institutions. In the governmentinstitutions, salaries were determined based ongrade and rank according to governmentregulations. For example, the head of agovernment institution in Aceh received Rp.1,925,000 (around USD 200) per month. Thesame salary was paid to two other managers(both civil servants). The other head of agovernment institution received a salary of Rp17,120,000 per annum (about USD 2000). Inone government institution in West Kalimantan,where salaries were set by the Local PersonnelAgency (Badan Kepegawaian Daerah), the headof a childcare institution received around Rp2,000,000 (USD 200) per month, while asection head earned some Rp 1,700,000 (USD170) per month, a staff member who has


page

240

graduated from senior high school Rp1,200,000 (USD 120) per month, and part-timestaff/caregivers Rp 530,000 (USD 55) permonth.

The salaries received by staff/managers ingovernment institutions were considerablymore than those received by staff/managers inprivate institutions. As the principal motive inthe private institution sector was religion andvolunteerism, the salaries paid were small. Thiswas also resulting from the financial limitationsfaced by many of the childcare institutions andfoundations. In some cases, salaries were paidirregularly. However, as a result of “ikhlas”(devotion) in the Muslim-based institutions and“cinta kasih” (love and charity) in the non-Muslim institutions, the question ofremuneration was rarely an issue.

In NTB for example, neither the managersnor the staff at Dharma Laksana and Al Ikhlasreceived salaries. In Darul Aitam, staffs werepaid only Rp 25,000 (USD 3) per month. InPatmos, the head of the institution receivedRp 200,000 (USD 20) per month, the treasurer/secretary Rp 100,000 (USD 10) and the cooksRp 60,000 (USD 6) per month. In DarulHikmah, allowances ranged from Rp 50,000(USD 5) per month for an ustad up to Rp250,000 – 300,000 (USD 25-30) for the headof institution. Similar salaries/allowances werepaid to staff/managers in private institutions inWest Kalimantan, although no salaries/allowances were paid in Al Amin. In IbnuTamiyah, staff/managers received Rp 300,000

(USD 30) (depending on financialcircumstance) every 6 months. In Eben Haezer,staff received Rp 215,000 (USD 215) permonth, support staff Rp 85,000 (USD 8.5), andvolunteers an allowance of Rp 80,000 (USD8) per month. In Pepabri, the staff was paid Rp250,000 (USD 25) per month, and a bonus forreligious holidays, while in Nur Ilahi, themanager, staff, support staff and volunteerswere all paid an allowance of Rp 200,000 (USD20) per month.

Some of the private childcare institutionspaid relatively high salaries/allowances. Forexample, in SOS Desa Taruna the caregiversreceived between Rp 400,000 (USD 40) andRp 700,000 (USD 70) per month, dependingon their length of service and other factors.The manager and support staff appeared toreceive more, although this was not specificallystated. In Dorkas, the manager received Rp600,000 (USD 60) per month, managers Rp300,000 (USD 30), caregivers Rp 225,000 (USD25), support staff Rp 150,000 (USD 15) andpart-time staff Rp 100,000 (USD 10).Meanwhile, in Caleb House, the managerreceived Rp 1,000,000 (USD 100) per month,managers and staff Rp 700,000 (USD 70) andcooks Rp 450,000 (USD 45).

In the government childcare institutions,as staffs were civil servants they were not onlyentitled to their basic salaries but also topensions when they reached retirement age.They also received help if they fell ill, eitherdirectly or through the government-run healthinsurance scheme (Askes). However, almost


page

241

none of the private childcare institutionsprovided such facilities, although help withmedical costs or a bonus for a religious festivalmight be forthcoming if the financialcircumstances of the institution permitted. InWahyu Yoga Dharma, the institution providedfree education up to third level for the childrenof the staff. The children were also allowed tolive within the complex.

Depending on whether the childcareinstitution was government or privately run,supervision would be exercised both internallyand externally by the provincial, district ormunicipal social affairs office (in the case ofgovernment institutions) or by the organizationthat ran the institution (in the case of privateinstitutions). Supervision was effected throughmeetings, discussions, evaluations of services(Parmadi Utomo), and through regulardiscussion-based appraisals of the workperformed by staff (SOS Desa Taruna). Theregularity of supervision varied, for example,once a month in the case of Dorkas, and oncea year in the case of SOS Desa Taruna.

There were also a number of childcareinstitutions which were not subject to any kindof formal supervision, not even of theperformance of the managers (such as in thecase of the Darurrokhmah institution). In asystem where all administrative roles werevested in the manager, supervision was oftenartificial as everything was in fact, entirely upto him/her. In such cases, supervision wouldnormally be conducted entirely on an informalbasis as required when problems arose, withall reports being forwarded to the head of theorganization, and all actions to be taken ordecided by him/her, with little or no input fromthe other staffs (in the case of a relatively biginstitution). For childcare institutions thatcame under the control of an organization suchas Al Muthadien or Hidayatullah, supervisiontook the form of cadre training and nationalmeetings.

Professional supervision was found to benon-existent.1 It was only in the governmentinstitution that supervision, mainly of anincidental nature, was conducted, particularlywith regard to administrative matters and

specific cases involving children. Otherwise, itwas found that it was primarily left to the staff/managers to find the most suitable forms ofcare and service. It was only if some majordifficulty was experienced that the staff wouldconsult with the managers. The institutionsappeared to be little more than “big houses”,with many of the staff principally relying onwhat they had learned from having and raisingchildren of their own. None of the childcareinstitutions employed professional staff for thepurpose of conducting supervision or oversight.Even those staff/managers who hadbackgrounds in social work did not performthis function. As a result, incidences ofunprofessional conduct were rarely picked upand if they were, they were generally notaddressed.

The lack of professional supervision wasalso reflected in the widespread failure tomaintain records of whatever supervisoryactions had been conducted. Supervision wasprimarily conducted orally, with little attentionbeing paid to the keeping or reviewing ofrecords. Staff/managers also lacked individualwritten work plans, and merely carried outtheir duties on a routine basis.

Deployment and Roles

Staff numbers and ratio

A total of 423 staff worked in the 36childcare institutions that were surveyed,consisting of 227 males (53.66 percent) and196 females (46.34 percent). Thus, the numberof men employed was greater than the numberof women, even though the difference was notso great. The terms “staff” refers to all thoseworking in a childcare institution, includingfounders, directors/heads, assistant directors/heads, managers, social workers, caregivers,educators, instructors, nurses, and support staff,such as cooks, security staff, gardeners andelectricians.

The following graph shows the staff genderprofile in each province:

The above graph shows that the biggestnumber of employees of the six childcare


page

242

institutions selected in each province was inAceh (22.65 percent), followed by NTB (20.59percent), which the smallest number per sixchildcare institutions was in West Kalimantan(10.98 percent). This was explained by the factthat 5 of the institutions in Aceh employedmore than 10 staff. In fact, Darul UlumMunawarrah in Lhoksemawe employed 32persons. Meanwhile, Muhammadiyah Meulabohhome had only 4 staff.

One of the reasons why the number ofemployees per institution was greatest in Acehand NTB was because these institutions werecombined with pesantren or other forms ofeducational establishment. Muhammadiyah (22staffs) and Darul Ulum Munawarrah (32 staffs),both of which are located in Lhoksemawe,Aceh, were combined with pesantren/educational establishments. Similarly, DarulAitam (16 staffs) and Darul Hikmah (23 staffs)were also combined with pesantren/educational establishments. The staffs in theseinstitutions concurrently served as managersand caregivers in the institutions and asteachers in the attached educationalestablishment.

Childcare institutions with very lownumbers of staff – less than 10, sometimes evenless than 5 – were found in all provinces, even

though the number of children cared for wasin the dozens. Exactly half (18) of all theinstitutions studied had fewer than 10 staffs,and 9 of these had fewer than 5 staffs. Theinstitutions in question and the number of staffsand children are as follows:

l Aceh: Muhammadiyah Meulaboh (4 staff :42 children)

l Central Java: Wahyu Yoga Dharma (4 : 45),Darurrokhmah (8 : 30), MuhammadiyahCilacap (8 : 37)

l NTB: Patmos (4 : 100), Dharma Laksana(7 : 16)

l West Kalimantan: Al Amin (2 : 38), IbnuTamiyah (6 : 42), Eben Haezer (9 : 55), NurIlahi (6 : 35), Pepabri (2 : 18)

l North Sulawesi: Lahoraung (5 : 18),Prajapati (3 : 80), Dorkas (7 : 82), AlMuthadien (7 : 49)

l Maluku: Al Hidayah (5 : 9), Caleb House (7: 63) and Ina Theresia (2 : 43)

The above data shows that many of thechildcare institutions were poorly staffed. Ofthe total of 36 institutions surveyed, 9 hadfewer than 5 staffs, and these were responsiblefor managing all aspects of the children’s lives.

Graph 18 Number of Staff


page

243

The situation is brought even more clearly intofocus when we look at the ratio of staff tochildren, with Patmos (1 : 25) being mostnoticeable in this regard. Patmos is alsonoteworthy as the head of the institution is71 years of age, and one of the staff is 61.Meanwhile, Patmos houses 81 childrenbetween the ages of 15 and 17, an age groupthat requires particular attention.

With a staff to child ratio of around 1: 10in the 18 childcare institutions referred toabove, it is clear that the standard set by theMinistry of Social Affairs in that regard are farfrom being attained.2 The ratio given here isalso based on all of the employees, not onlycaregivers who work directly with the children.In all of the 36 childcare institutions surveyed,the majority of the staffs worked in a numberof positions at the same time (see thedescription on employment in the childcareinstitutions). In addition, not all of the staffsrecorded as being employed actually workedon a regular basis in the childcare institutions– some of them also worked primarily asteachers but also occasionally doubled up asstaff or worked as volunteers (rather than asfull-time employees). Given these realities, andthe very small number of staff employed bythe institutions who had a social workbackground, it is clear that the 1: 5 ratio ofsocial worker per child required under theGovernment guidelines is almost never goingto be met nor is the desired ratio of careworker per child.

In the majority of childcare institutionssurveyed (31 out of 36), the staffs consisted ofboth men and women, with the exception ofWahyu Yoga Dharma in Central Java, Patmosin NTB, Pepabri in West Kalimantan and InaTheresia in Maluku, where all of the staffs werefemale. The above graph il lustrates aninteresting phenomenon: in the predominantlyMuslim areas (Aceh and NTB), there wereapproximately twice as many male as therewere female staff/managers, while the exactopposite was the case in predominantlyChristian North Sulawesi. The genderimbalance was particularly noticeable in Aceh,where Muhammadiyah Lhokksemawe which

cares only for boys had 20 male and 2 femaleemployees, and Darul Ulum Munawarrah,where the comparison was 24 : 8. In NTB, DarulAitam had a comparison of 13 : 3, Darul Hikmah16 : 7 and Al Ikhlas 14 : 1. Meanwhile in NorthSulawesi, Sayap Kasih had 18 female employeescompared to only three males. This wasexplained by the fact that Sayap Kasih providedcare to children who had both mental andphysical disability and who were consideredto require female carers who were deemedmore patient and caring. The largepreponderance of male staffs in Muslim-basedinstitutions in Aceh and NTB on the other hand,also seem to reflect local perception of genderroles and the need for male guidance forchildren, particularly male ones.

The number of staff employed dependedupon the financial circumstances of theinstitution and its ability to pay them. Thoseinstitutions that were run by the governmenttended to employ more staffs compared withthe other institutions. For example, Nirmalaand Suci Hati, both in Aceh, employed 15 and11 staff respectively, while Woro Wilosoemployed 12, Pamardi Utomo in Central Java18, Harapan in NTB 25, UPRS in WestKalimantan 23, and Huke Ina 24. An exceptionto this was Lohoraung in North Sulawesi.Although this was owned by the District ofSangihe Islands, it was provided with inadequatefunding. In addition, the manager was notcategorized as a civil servant. The head of thatinstitution had previously been the wife of thehead of district, but had stopped taking aninterest after her husband’s term came to anend. On a day-to-day basis, this institution,which housed 18 children, was practically runby its manager on her own.

It was found that a number of the privatechildcare institutions were quite well-offfinancially, such as SOS Desa Taruna inSemarang, Central Java, which is part of aninternational organization. This institutionemployed a total of 24 staffs to care for 141children. Similarly, Sayap Kasih in NorthSulawesi was able to employ 21 staffs thanksto strong support from the community.


page

244

Age Profile

Of the 378 respondents interviewed aspart of this study (49 percent male and 51percent female), employee ages ranged fromone employee of 18 in Wahyu Yoga Dharma toone of 85 in Darurrokhmah. The age profile ofstaffs, by intervals of 10 years, is shown in thefollowing table:

The above table shows that more thanhalf of the total numbers of respondents wereunder 40 years of age with percentages forthe 21-30, 31-40 and 41-50 age brackets beingrelatively similar. This data demonstrates thatchildcare institution staffs were generally youngand of employment age. However, the data alsorevealed that 4.23 percent of the respondentswere older than 60 years of age. Some of thesestaff were the founders or managers of thechildcare institutions, and had been in theircurrent positions for many years. The oldestmember of staff was found in Darurrokhmah,and she was the founder who was 85 years ofage. Two other staffs in this institution wereaged 65 and 78 respectively. Three staffs atDarul Aitam in NTB were of advanced age (66,69 and 70), as were three staffs at SOS DesaTaruna in Central Java (61, 63 and 64). In Patmosin NTB, two respondents including the headof the institution were aged 71 and 61respectively. This study did not investigate indetail the consequences of such a wide agegap between the caregivers and their charges.From a positive perspective, people who areolder can serve as sources of wisdom and may

be regarded as creating a situation where threegenerations (children, parents andgrandparents) are represented in theinstitution. On the other hand respondentswho were not much older than their chargescould serve as bridges between the childrenand the older staffs.

Particular circumstances prevailed in somechildcare institutions, such as SOS Desa Taruna,where none of the respondents were youngerthan 30. Similar conditions were found in sixinstitutions in North Sulawesi: Prajapati,Dorkas, Lohoraung, and Dr. J. Lukas. In NurIlahi, the age of all of the respondents was over40. A total of 5.29 percent of respondents alsorefused to divulge their ages as they viewedthis as a private matter.

Length of Service

As shown in the table below, the majorityof respondents (76 percent) had worked forless than 10 years with 51.3% having workedfrom between 3 to 10 years.

On the other hand, 22 percent were foundto have worked in a childcare institution formore than 10 years, and a small number (20respondents) had worked for more than 20years. In addition, 4 respondents were said tohave worked with their institution for over 30years. For these respondents, working in achildcare institution was clearly a longer termcommitment and an expression of their desire

Table 9. Age profile of staff

Age Brackets

Province < 20 21- 30 31 – 40 41- 50 51 - 60 > 60 No Response

NAD 4 32 16 15 5 1 7Jateng 2 2 24 18 16 6 5NTB 1 8 14 19 8 6 3Kalbar 0 10 13 7 10 1 5Sulut 1 13 23 8 6 0 2Maluku 1 26 23 9 4 2 2Total 9 92 113 77 51 16 20% 2.38 24.34 29.89 20.37 13.49 4.23 5.29


page

245

to serve their community. It also meant thatthey possessed a great deal of experience inworking with children living in residentialinstitutions.

Four of those who had worked for morethan 30 years were employed respectively byPatmos in NTB (32 years), Darul Aitam in NTB(43 years), and 2 by Dr. J. Lukas in NorthSulawesi (32 years). The Patmos institution wasitself 35 years old, Darul Aitam 46 years oldand Dr. J. Lukas 32 years old. This meant thatthe respondents had been working in theseinstitutions almost since they were founded.The respondent from Patmos was 71 years ofage, the one from Darul Aitam 66, and the twofrom Dr. J. Lukas 57 and 53 years of agerespectively.

Conversely, relatively new employees (lessthan 5 years) were found among therespondents at Sayap Kasih and Al Muthadienin North Sulawesi, as well as Caleb House,which opened in 2004 after the conflict inMaluku subsided. Sayap Kasih opened in 2001,so that it was exactly five years old when thesurvey was conducted in North Sulawesi. AlHidayah was only 2 years old at the time ofthe survey and under new management.

Status of Staff

Staffs were categorized as being employedon a permanent, support, voluntary, part-time,assignment, contract, on-call, or other basis. Thegraph below shows that the majority of staffswere employed on a permanent basis (64

percent, or 2 out of 3). In this context,“permanent” meant regular work on a dailybasis and close ties to the childcare institution.“Close ties” were understood as ownershipof the childcare institution, serving as manager(although some respondents did not do so onan active basis) or an appointment, as in thecase of the staffs in government childcareinstitutions. This differed from the usualmeaning of “permanent”, whereby staffs areappointed to a position on a permanent basiswithout need for new contracts at regularintervals, and where dismissal gives rise to aright to severance pay. As explained earlier, anumber of the childcare institutions surveyeddid not pay their staffs as serving in theinstitution was a calling, humanitarian vocationor a manifestation of service to the community,even where such staffs worked on a“permanent” basis.

Period of Service

Province < 1 1-2 3-5 6-10 11-20 21-30 >30 No Response

NAD 4 18 20 29 9 1 0 0Jateng 1 9 12 15 25 11 0 0NTB 2 9 14 18 7 7 2 0Kalbar 0 1 23 8 11 1 0 1Sulut 6 13 20 3 3 0 2 6Maluku 4 26 16 15 5 0 0 1Total 17 76 105 88 60 20 4 8% 4.5 20.1 28 23.3 15.87 5.29 1.06 2.12

Table 10 Length of Service

Graph 19 Employee Status


page

246

The above graph shows that “volunteer”,“support”, and “part-time” staff constituted asignificant portion (36%) of the staffing in theinstitutions although a majority (64%) weredeemed permanent staff. Staffs in the “part-time” category consisted of those who havenot yet been made permanent, or had not beenappointed as civil servants in the case of thegovernment childcare institutions. Most of thepart-time employees were found in a numberof government childcare institutions, includingNirmala (3) and Suci Hati (4) in Aceh, WoroWiloso (2), and Pamardi Utomo (3) in CentralJava, the UPRS in West Kalimantan (8), andHuke Ina in Maluku (2). In the civil servicestaffing system, a part-time employee may beappointed as a civil servant if a vacancy in thequota arises.

Support staff tended to be seen as havinga lower status than the part-time employeesas they were recruited to assist with work ofa complementary nature, rather than theprincipal work conducted in the childcareinstitutions. This included such work as cooking,providing security, cleaning, and gardening. Thebiggest proportion of staff from this categorywas also found in the government childcareinstitutions (20 out of 36 respondents).

The category of “volunteer” referred tothose people from outside the childcareinstitution who voluntarily donated their timeand labour to the institution. A total of 45respondents were classified as volunteers, withmost of these working in private childcareinstitutions. These volunteers donated theirexpertise in the educational, cultural andvocational training fields. Interestingly, Al Aminand Ibnu Tamiyah in West Kalimantan, andLohoraung in North Sulawesi stated that all oftheir staff were volunteers, and recognized noother employee status. The respondents feltthat work in a childcare institution wasprimarily voluntary in nature and was divorcedfrom permanent employment relations.

By contrast, the respondents from AlUmmah in Aceh, SOS Desa Taruna in CentralJava, Patmos, Harapan and Nur Ilahi in NTB,and Caleb House and Al Hidayah in Malukuwere all permanent employees.

As regards the “other” category, onerespondent in Harapan in NTB had just beentransferred there and had not yet been givenclear assignments, while one contract and twoon-call workers were employed by Sayap Kasihin North Sulawesi (these were to work therefor a specified period of time).

Positions

The positions in childcare institutionsvaried but could be differentiated into thefollowing categories:

4 Leadership: founders, heads/manager andassistant heads/directors

4 Managerial: responsible for managementand administrative functions, includingsecretaries, treasurers, heads of units/sections, staff, and administrative personnel

4 Service providers: social workers,caregivers, dormitory heads, educators,vocational training instructors,physiotherapists, and nurses.

4 Support staff: security personnel, cooks,gardeners, and electricians.

The profile of respondents according totheir position is as shown in the following chart:

The data includes respondentsconcurrently holding more than one positionwhich was a common feature of private

Graph 20 Position of Staffs


page

247

childcare institutions that often suffered fromlimited numbers of staff. In order to overcomestaff shortages, people tended to take on morethan one job so as to get the work done, eventhough this increased the burden on staffs, andmeant that children often had to carry outwork to make up for the lack of staff.

Aside from the question of concurrentpositions, the graph shows that proportion ofrespondents involved in service provision wasby far the biggest at 63 percent (3 out of 5respondents).

The service category was dominated bycaregivers (185), educators/teachers (80),dormitory heads (38), and staff positioned associal workers (28) although this did notnecessarily mean that they were trained socialworkers. The remaining respondents consistedof vocational skills trainers (8), all of whomwere working in Nirmala, MuhammadiyahMeulaboh, Darul Ulum Munawarrah and AlUmmah in Aceh, Harapan and Darul Hikmahin NTB, Dorkas in North Sulawesi and InaTheresia in Maluku; one physiotherapist inSayap Kasih in North Sulawesi (in line with thisinstitution’s mission of caring for children withphysical and mental disability); and two nursesworking respectively in the Harapan institutionin NTB and Caleb House in Maluku. Thephysiotherapist in Sayap Kasih and the nursesand two instructors in Dorkas and Darul UlumMunawarrah did not concurrently hold otherpositions, while the other 6 instructors alsoworked in other capacities.

The assessment also found that that therewere more teachers than social workersemployed by the childcare institutions, whichreflected the finding that more respondentshad backgrounds in education rather thansocial work and that this was seen as theprimary focus of the services provided. A totalof 12 out of the 28 social worker respondentswere employed in government childcareinstitutions, while the remainder wereemployed in private institutions. Overall 18 ofthe social worker respondents also served inother capacities. Most of the caregivers,dormitory heads and educators also servedconcurrently in other capacities. A total of 88respondents who worked as caregivers and 33

who worked as dormitory heads also servedin other positions, while 47 of the 80 teacherrespondents did likewise, further illustrating thedominance of teachers in providing care tochildren in residential institutions. The fact thatso many caregivers also held other positionsreflected the view that an employee of achildcare institution would automatically beexpected to serve as a caregiver. As a result,the number of caregivers accounted for almosthalf of the 378 respondents. Caregivers whodid not occupy other positions were only foundat Pamardi Utomo and SOS Desa Taruna inCentral Java, Darul Aitam in NTB, and EbenHaezer in West Kalimantan. Similarly, it was onlyin Ibnu Tamiyah that the dormitory heads didnot also hold other positions. Genderdifferentiation in relation to the care staff roleswas only applied in those childcare institutionsthat were associated with pesantren, such asIbnu Tamiyah, where the girls were looked afterby women (ustadzah) and the boys by men(ustad).

In the managerial category, there were atotal of 12 treasurers, 28 unit/section heads,84 managers/staff and 84 administrative staff.These four positions were, however, not foundin every institution, with all of theadministrative work often being carried outby one or two of the positions. For example,the positions of secretary/treasurer were onlyfound in Muhammadiyah Lhokksemawe in Aceh(2), Muhammadiyah Cilacap (2), SOS DesaTaruna (2), Dharma Laksana (1) and DarulAitam in NTB (1), Al Amin (1) and Eben Haezer(1), and Lohoraung (1) and Al Hidayah (1) inNorth Sulawesi. Administrative positions werefound in Wahyu Yoga Dharma (2),Darurrokhmah (1) and Pamardi Utomo (1) inCentral Java, Harapan in NTB (4), UPRS in WestKalimantan (1) and Dr. J. Lukas (1) in NorthSulawesi. Of the 10 respondents occupyingadministrative positions, 6 were employed byGovernment institutions.

With regard to leadership positions, 4respondents were founders, 32 managers, and2 assistant managers. Two of the founders werefrom Darrurokhmah in Central Java, and oneeach from Nur Ilahi and Hidayatullah. The 32managers were in found 32 institutions, but


page

248

not in Harapan in NTB, Lohoraung in NorthSulawesi and Huke Ina, as they did not haveany staff serving as either managers or assistantmanagers. In the particular case of Huke Ina,the institution was run by an acting head whileawaiting the appointment of a permanentdirector. The remaining assistant managerswere employed by Dharma Laksana in NTBand Muhammadiyah in Central Java, both ofwhich also had respondents serving as manager.

The combining of leadership positionswith other posts occurred in Al Ummah inAceh, where the manager of the institution alsoserved as a teacher and in Dharma Laksana inNTB, where the manager also served as acaregiver. In Darul Aitam in NTB, the assistantmanager also served as a care staff, and a similarsituation prevailed in Darul Hikmah. In theUPRS in West Kalimantan, the manager alsoheld the position of section head. In Dorkas,the manager also served as a section head, staffand caregiver, while in Al Muthadien, themanager also worked as a caregiver andeducator. The fact that 7 of the respondent inthe leadership category also undertook otherfunctions clearly shows that the managementof a childcare institution requires theperformance of a wide range of duties.

In the support category, a number ofchildcare institutions had security, gardener andelectrician positions. Generally, security staffswere mainly employed by the governmentinstitutions, with 2 working at Nirmala in Aceh,one each at Woro Wiloso, Pamardi Utomo andUPRS. In addition, one was employed byDarurrokhmah, a private childcare institutionin Central Java. The gardener and electriciancategory accounted for three respondents (1of whom also worked in another capacity), andall of these were employed by UPRS. As a biggovernment institution that also operatedvarious other programs within a largecompound, UPRS clearly had need of thesestaff. While only 22 of the respondents werepositioned as cooks, in other institutions wereno cook was hired other staff would also workas cooking and kitchen staff while childrenwould also do the cooking. In a number of thelarger institutions, more than one cook wasemployed, with 3 working at Suci Hati in Aceh,

two each at UPRS and Ibnu Tamiyah in WestKalimantan, two at Sayap Kasih in NorthSulawesi and two at Nurul Ikhlas in Maluku.

Training and ProfessionalDevelopment

Training constitutes an essential elementof human resources development so as toequip people with the knowledge and skills theyneed to better perform their duties. Duringthe course of the survey, managers andcaregivers were questioned as to what typesof training events or courses they hadparticipated in.

Of the total of respondents (378) only 125had ever participated in a training or a course(33%). Those who did, however, were found tohave participated in a wide range of suchcourses. Of the different types of trainingshown in the graph below, two broadcategories could be found: managementtraining (institution management, socialorganization management, and record-keeping),and training that is specifically connected withchildren (child protection, childcare, counselling,nutrition, and communicating with children).

If we look however at the number of staffwho actually followed each of the training, it isclear, however, that only a very small number

Graph 21. Training Events Participated in


page

249

of staff had participated in each of the types oftraining. The majority of those had receivedsocial work training (30 respondents) with 15respondents who had done so from theGovernment institutions and 15 from theprivate institutions. Social organizationmanagement training was also provided by theGovernment, as childcare institutions areclassified by the Ministry of Social Affairs as asocial organization. Only 3 percent of therespondents, however, had received training inareas that were directly connected withchildren, with only 9 respondents who hadreceived childcare training, and all of these wereemployed by SOS Desa Taruna in Central Java.This meant that the staffs of the remainingchildcare institutions (a total of 369respondents) had never received any form oftraining on the care of children in residentialinstitutions.

The only forms of training that were foundin all provinces were institution management,social organization management and socialwork, and all of these training events had beenorganized by the Ministry of Social Affairs orsocial affairs office in province level. One formof training that was becoming more commonwas child protection, with such training eventshaving been delivered in all of the provinces.These training courses were organized by theMinistry of Social Affairs or social affairs officein province level, with the support of Unicef inAceh, and the Child Protection Agency (LPA)in NTB.

The survey showed that none of thechildcare institutions provided trainingthemselves for managers and caregivers, withthe exception of Sayap Kasih, which directlyprovided nursing and therapist training on itspremises. In addition, foster mothers in SOSDesa Taruna in Central Java were required toattend two-week training courses withcaregivers from the other SOS childcareinstitutions every year. The training sessionswere organized by SOS’ headquarter inIndonesia, rather than by the individualinstitutions.

It is interesting to note that staffs fromgovernment institutions dominatedparticipation in the training categories shown

in the above graph. With the exception ofchildcare and nutrition training, respondentsfrom government institutions had participatedin all of the other forms of training. In fact,record-keeping training events were onlyparticipated in by staff from the governmentinstitutions, with four staff from PamardiUtomo in Central Java and four from Harapanin NTB having done so. The governmentinstitutions clearly enjoyed much greateropportunities and facilities in this regard.

Conversely, the respondents from anumber of institutions had never participatedin any form of training event (Al Ummah inAceh, Lohoraung and Prajapati in NorthSulawesi, and Ina Theresia and Huke Ina inMaluku). In addition, respondents from anumber of other institutions had participatedin training but the training in question had noconnection with childcare institutions(Muhammadiyah Meulaboh in Aceh – radiomanagement; Al Ikhlas in NTB – street children,screen printing and Red Cross training).

The data revealed that not only very fewstaffs had appropriate educational backgroundsfor working in childcare institutions, but mostof them had also never received any sort oftraining that was connected with their work.The training courses provided by the Ministryof Social Affairs or provincial social affairs officestended to be general in nature, such aschildcare institution and social organizationmanagement, and social work. Anotherproblem was that the courses delivered by theMinistry of Social Affairs, whether in Jakartaor the regions, were normally aimed at staffsfrom social affairs offices (provincial, districtor municipality). In addition, the results oftraining were rarely shared with the managersof the childcare institutions in the givenprovinces. Similarly, standards and technicalguidelines, regulations relating to children’srights and protection and other supportmaterials were rarely forwarded to childcareinstitutions.

The “Other” category of training coveredsuch areas as strategic planning, economicempowerment, disaster response,volunteerism, sponsorship schemes, leadership,social outreach work, and advocacy, halfway


page

250

house/street children programs, trafficking,HIV/AIDS, group dynamics, screen printing, RedCross programs, teacher standardization, thecompetencies-based curriculum, brainexercises, ESQ, childhood haemophilia, humanresources development, heroic values,monitoring and evaluation, PRA, social mapping,radio management and human rights. The datareveals the following interesting aspects:

l The positioning of childcare institutionsas social organizations was evidenced bythe participation of respondents in trainingon strategic management, economicempowerment, disaster response,volunteerism, sponsorship schemes,leadership, social outreach, heroic values,and advocacy. This also included socialorganization management and social work.

l Some of the respondents received trainingthat related particularly to education, suchas teacher standardization andcompetence based curriculum courses.This is not surprising given that 40 of therespondents were trained as teachers.

l Specific technical training was onlyprovided to staff from Sayap Kasih (brainexercise and haemophilia training).

Footnotes:1 In social work, supervision covers the educative function (the supervisor transfers knowledge and skills),

administrative functions (reviewing the discharge of duties), and supportive functions (providing support to staffexperiencing stress or personal difficulties).

2 The Department of Social Affairs requires a ratio of 1: 5 pekerja social (See book Depsos RI (2002) GeneralGuidelines for the Operation of Childcare Institutions as Part of the Provision of Services to Neglected/AbandonedChildren, Jakarta: Directorate General of Social and Rehabilitation Services, Directorate of Children’s SocialServices Development.)

l Useful training for childcare institutions,such as monitoring and evaluation, PRA,social mapping and human rights, had alsobeen provided in some instances.

The diversity of the training participatedin by the respondents shows that the work ofchildcare institutions is not regarded as beingconfined solely to childcare, but alsoencompasses various other issues connectedwith children’s problems, education and socialorganizations. While these forms of trainingmay be useful, they are nevertheless not directlysupporting the core business of childcareinstitutions. This situation is compounded bythe fact that very little training is provided thatis relevant to the work of childcare institutions.Furthermore, it is likely that most of thetraining provided has been of a general orintroductory nature as none of therespondents received further training in thesame area, despite the fact that many of thetopics addressed by the training were verybroad and could not conceivably be fullycovered by a one-off training course.

“Someone That Matters” | XII Resources

page

251

XII. Resources

Location and Design

Most of the childcare institutions surveyed were located along the roadside in district orprovincial capitals. They were generally in the middle of the community, and easily accessible byroad. In addition, they were often highly visible. Some of the childcare institutions were strategicallylocated in town centres, close to basic services such as schools and other educational institutions,Puskesmas (community health centres), hospital and markets. Those that were not located intown centres, such as SOS Desa Taruna which was located on the outskirts of Semarang, werenevertheless well known to the surrounding community. Similarly, Darul Ulum in Aceh, whichwas sited on a hill about 500 meters from the main road, was nevertheless widely known to thecommunity, even though it was only accessible by “ojek” (motorcycle taxi). The central locationsof the childcare institutions surveyed clearly facilitated donor access.


page

252

The government childcare institutions, andthose run by well-funded organizations, suchas the SOS Desa Taruna institution, tended tobe larger and more modern, with sturdierbuildings and better maintenance compared tothe majority of private institutions. The factthat these institutions were more modernmeant that management was better able toorganize the use of space, and provide separatedining rooms, sleeping accommodation, studyfacilities, auditoriums, kitchens, stores,bathrooms/toilets, etc.

A number of childcare institutions werespecially designed with an eye on the securityof their charges. In Darurrokhmah, for example,the institution could only be accessed fromthe front so that the arrival of visitors wouldbecome immediately known. In Nur Ilahi, thechildren lived on the second floor, separatefrom the offices and activities roomsdownstairs. In Pepabri, on the other hand,where child protection issues had once arisen,the layout was less than conducive to goodsecurity. The caregiver’s room was at the frontof the building, and the children’s rooms at theback, with the door between the two beingclosed at night. While the girl’s roomsdownstairs could be closed, there was no dooron the boys’ dormitory upstairs. Questions ofsecurity and safety can also arose in the casesof institutions were bathroom/toilet facilitieswere not located on site or near to thechildren’s rooms. While this survey uncoveredno cases involving threats to the security andsafety of children, the existence of toilets/bathrooms removed from the main buildingor the dormitories was a cause for concern,particularly at night. The fact that in some cases,as with Eben Haezer, children had to bathe inisolated areas, with no or little lighting and nearroads also evidenced a lack of concern aboutchildren’s security as well privacy.

Accommodation

The fact that the same rooms wereemployed for various functions in most of thechildcare institutions showed that the spaceavailable was inadequate. In the privateinstitutions whose financial resources were

limited, the same room would often be usedfor diverse purposes, such as dining, studying,as a guest room, or watching TV. While someof the private childcare institutions hadseparate offices for the managers and staffs, inmany of them these rooms were combined. Infact, some of the institutions had no offices atall.

As described earlier, bathroom/toiletfacilities were found to generally beunsatisfactory from the perspectives ofquantity, illumination, distance from mainbuilding and hygiene/sanitation. Sleepingaccommodation was also found to beunsatisfactory, with many bedrooms/dormitories suffering from overcrowding. Someof the childcare institutions only provided matsfor the children to sleep on, rather thanmattresses, while in others there was ashortage of mattresses, so that some of thechildren had to do without. From theperspective of ventilation, some bedroomswere found to lack sufficient light and to sufferfrom poor air circulation. This combined withcramped sleeping arrangements, untidyarrangement of mattresses, sheets and pillows,and the willy-nilly discarding of clothes due toa lack of closets, meant that many of thebedrooms were found to be stifling anddisorderly.

Generally speaking, the conditions in eachchildcare institution depended primarily on thepolicies pursued by the management. Those

“Someone That Matters” | XII Resources

page

253

institutions that had sufficient funds formaintenance and cleaning, and a willingness onthe part of management to keep things in order,were found to be mostly in good condition. Bycontrast, those that lacked funding and stafffor such purposes and where a willingness onthe part of management to prioritizemaintenance and sanitation was not evidenced,were frequently found to be crowded, dirtyand in poor condition. Many of the olderbuildings appeared not to be maintained. Inaddition, the backyards, where foul water andgarbage were disposed off, and the toiletslocated, were often not looked after or keptclean.

The lack of cleanliness in a number of thechildcare institutions that were surveyedshowed a real lack of concern for properhygiene and sanitation as such children’s wellbeing. This obviously has serious implicationsas regards hygiene training, as was observed in

many instances by the assessors. A lack ofmoney was frequently raised as a justificationfor hygiene deficiencies, despite the fact thatkeeping the environment clean does notrequire a great deal of money, especially if thechildren are provided with sufficient toileteriesand properly supported to respect cleanliness.

Despite all of these shortcomings, childrenrarely complained. For some of them, theconditions in the institution were better thanthose at home and they focused on theopportunity given to them to go to school.They were also aware that any requests forimproved conditions would be consideredunacceptable as they were expected to begrateful for what they were given and, in anycase, would not be fulfilled. In fact, such requestscould very well leave them open to a scoldingor punishment.


page

254

“Someone That Matters” | XIII Administration

page

255

XIII. Administration

Record-Keeping

A FAILURE TO KEEP proper records was observed in all of the childcare institutions surveyed.Not all of the institutions, including government ones, maintained individual files on each child, hisprogress and the services provided to him/her. Records were rarely kept on a day-to-day basis. Ingeneral, staffs relied primarily on their memories as regards the condition of the children andincidents that had occurred. Of course, human memory being what it is, many things that shouldbe remembered were forgotten – not surprising given the large number of children being caredfor and the fact that some of the managers/staffs were of advanced age.

Only a small number of the childcare institutions maintained relatively comprehensive records.In Pamardi Utomo, for example, a file was kept for each child, including the documentationrecording the child’s entry to the institution and reports on the child’s development. In Sayap


page

256

Kasih, comprehensive records were kept,including reports from carers. At PSAA Dr. J.Lukas, records were kept in order in the mainoffice. However, foster families were notrequired to record incidents. At SOS DesaTaruna, the children’s records were maintainedin duplicate, with one set being kept by thefoster mother and the other in the main office.In Harapan, reviews of the educational progressachieved by the children were also kept.

A very different situation prevailed,however, in a number of the childcareinstitutions. In Dorkas, individual files were notmaintained in an orderly fashion. In Prajapati,administrative and children’s records were notmaintained on a comprehensive basis, with only

the barest minimum of data being recorded. Asimilar situation prevailed at Lohoraung. At AlMuthadien and Wahyu Yoga Dharma, therecords only consisted of the bio data of thechildren and a brief family assessment. At WoroWiloso and Darurrokhmah, only the children’sdata at the time of entry were recorded. Thesituation was even worse at MuhammadiyahCilacap, where staff had difficulty in retrievingchildren’s files and their health records. InPepabri, there were no records at all, even asregards the number of children being caredfor. At UPRS, the only records maintained werethose from the time the children entered theinstitution, and various documents containedthe signatures of their parents. This was despite

the fact that UPRS in a government childcareinstitution, whose managers have social workbackgrounds. The childcare institutions in NTBalso contained records from the time of entry,but all in different formats. These generallycontained the particulars of the children andtheir parents.

The situation as regards financial recordswas somewhat better, which was explained bythe fact that administrators were required toaccount for the use of government funds toinspectors. Should these accounts be foundto be unsatisfactory, sanctions could ensue orfunding could be cut off.

Confidentiality

No special efforts were made to maintainthe confidentiality of information on thechildren. This was primarily due to the fact thatfew records were kept, so that there was littlethat could be kept confidential in the first place.During the course of the research, the staff/managers displayed little hesitation in revealinginformation on their charges, and most wereunaware that such information should be keptconfidential. In no cases were the childrenasked for permission before the divulging ofconfidential information. It appeared that therewas a form of unwritten agreement that uponentering a childcare institution, everythingconcerning the child became part of the publicdomain.

In a number of institutions, the children’sfiles were kept in a disorderly manner, with nospecial place being provided for their storage.In general, these files were mixed up with otheradministrative records so that it was oftendifficult to distinguish the children’s files fromother files. Even where there was a specialcabinet for the children’s records, it appearedthat anyone could gain access. It was foundthat there were no special rules or proceduresin existence governing access to files and formaintaining their confidentiality.

In only a small number of institutions wererecords properly kept and confidentialitymaintained. In Prajapati, all records were keptby the manager or another staff as these

“Someone That Matters” | XIII Administration

page

257

records were considered important. At Dr. J.Lukas, while the records cabinet was notlocked, it was nevertheless situated in arelatively secure location so that it was notaccessible to unauthorized persons. Similarlyat Sayap Kasih, the confidentiality of children’srecords were professionally maintained.Pamardi Utomo and SOS Desa Taruna alsomaintained children’s development plans,records of educational progress, healthinformation, information on the children’sbackgrounds and guardians. All of these werekept confidential. In Wahyu Yoga Dharma andDarurrokhmah, while there were no writtenrules, the institution managers would keepconfidential any information that couldsubsequently lead to stigmatization orembarrassment.

Roles of Managers and Owners

The level to which the institutionmanagers and/or head of the parent foundationbecame involved in the management of theinstitution depended on the institution’sorganizational structure. Where a foundationexecutive was also the manager of theinstitution, then he would take charge of allaspects of the institution’s management. In suchcases, there was no strict separation betweenthe foundation and childcare institution as, inreality, the institution was the only operationrun by the foundation. In such circumstances,all decisions concerning policy, programs,services, administration, and finance would, ingeneral, be taken by institution/foundation head.Where there was a separation between thechildcare institution and the parent foundation,two patterns were observed. First, thefoundation executives played an active role in,and had significant influence over, the runningof the institution. Generally, such a situationoccurred where the childcare institution wascombined with a pesantren or othereducational facility. In such circumstances, thechildcare institution was in reality an integralpart of the pesantren/educational facility, withall decisions originating from the foundation.Conversely, there were also a number ofchildcare institutions where the foundation

executives did not play an active role inmanagement, and left all decisions up to themanager of the childcare institution. In suchcases, the foundation executives would consistof a number of well-known local figures, butdue to their other commitments they wouldonly be able to assist with work in the childcareinstitution from time to time.

In the government childcare institutions,full responsibility for management is vested inthe head of the local social affairs office at theprovincial, district or municipality level, as thecase may be. As a line unit, decisions regardingappointments, transfers, promotions, financeand programs are all the responsibility of thelocal social affairs office. On a day-to-day basis,the institution is managed by a manager, whois accountable to the head of the local socialaffairs office.

In the case of government childcareinstitutions, the role played by the local socialaffairs office is dominant as this is organizationthat is ultimately responsible for themanagement of the institution. Its duties in thisregard also extend to monitoring andevaluation. This differs from the situation thecase of the private institutions, wheremonitoring and evaluation visits by officials ofthe local social affairs office are rare. In mostcases, the local social affairs office only receivessufficient funding to visit a number of childcareinstitutions once per year, with the result thatnot all institutions receive visits. Outside ofmonitoring and evaluation, incidental visits mayalso take place should some form of specialevent be taking place in a childcare institution.Furthermore, visits may be conducted byofficials of the local social affairs office shouldan audit or monitoring process be conductedby the provincial government or Ministry ofSocial Affairs. At the time the BBM subsidyprogram was being rolled out, opportunitiesarose for field visits by officials of l provincialsocial affairs office as part of the program’ssocialization process. To date, no externalevaluation of the surveyed institutions isconducted by third parties, except in the caseof those institutions that receive funding otherthan from the national or local budgets.


page

258

page

259

“Someone That Matters” | XIV PATI: the DEPSOS Model

XIV. PATI: the DEPSOS Model

THE RESEARCH ALSO carried out an in-depth assessment of the quality of care provided inone of two childcare institutions run by the Ministry of Social Affairs, PSAA Tunas Bangsa in Pati,Central Java. This assessment was carried out separately from those of the 36 childcare institutionsselected for this research as this institution is run by the Ministry as a model for other childcareinstitutions and is directly under its supervision. The aim of the assessment was to identifywhether the services provided by this institution differed in approach or in quality to thoseprovided by the childcare institutions selected under this research.1

PSAA Tunas Bangsa was first established in 1979 as a part of the ‘children and family’ welfareprogramme of the Provincial office of the Ministry of Social Affairs in Central Java. It startedoperating in 1981 with the aim of providing assistance to the orphans, the fatherless or motherlessand neglected children.2 At the time, the institution cared for 20 children and also ran a vocational


page

260

training unit for children who had dropped outof school. By 1986 the institution cared for 50children, by 1994 it cared for 60 children andin 2007 it cared for 95 children under itsresidential care programme. Tunas Bangsa(from now on ‘Pati’) is based on a multi serviceapproach whereby the institution actuallydelivers a range of services to different groupsof vulnerable people. It provides not onlyresidential care for children but also day careservices for pre-school children in thesurrounding community and services for theelderly. In addition, Pati also provides directassistance to 23 children living with theirfamilies in the community.

Its vision and mission is to deliverprofessional services based on social solidaritywhich can be a model in social welfareassistance, with a particular focus on childrenand the elderly. While it continues to prioritiseorphans, as one of the senior staff pointed out,‘it is hard to find orphans’. Instead Pati providesservices primarily to ‘neglected children’,children from families that are poor. As wasexplained by the head of the institution,

“Generally they come from families that donot have the means, their parents are onlyagricultural workers and as a result theycannot afford the education of theirchildren. I think they are safe because wecan fulfil their needs for food, clothes andput them through school.”

As a result, the great majority of the 48boys and 47 girls children being cared for inPati still had parents with over 90% having oneor both parents alive and only 6% beingorphans. Both parents were alive in the caseof 56% children, 20% were fatherless and 15%were motherless. In addition, the whereaboutsof the fathers of 3 children was unknown.

In many ways, Pati is a model of a childcareinstitution and there is no doubt that theservices it provides are better than in any ofthe 36 other institutions assessed under thisresearch, including the other government runones. Its facilities are comprehensive, in amodern compound which has a stated capacityof 120 children, but the head of the institutionhas recognised that the funds to care

appropriately for such a number of childrenwere not sufficient. Unlike other institutions,the management in Pati has not tried to makethe money stretch to take in as many childrenas possible or as many as could be physicallyhoused in the facility. Instead, the head of theinstitution has used the extra space creativelyby renting the facilities and as a result gettingnot only extra funds for the services providedin the institution but also being able to developits outreach in the community and provideassistance to more children and familiesdirectly.

Pati is a well resourced childcareinstitution. It has an annual budget which istwice that of UPRS, the childcare institution,also government run, which was found to havethe highest budget of all the institutionsassessed. In 2005, Pati was allocated by theMinistry of Social Affairs over USD 370,000(the same amount was allocated in 2006 witha slight increase). A breakdown of its 2005spending shows that about USD 64,000 wentinto services for children, USD 57,000 wentinto wages for its staff, USD 204,000 was usedfor the maintenance and renovations ofbuildings as well as new buildings, and aboutUSD 11,000 went into administrative and officecosts. Pati employs 34 staff, all of which arecivil servants. Out of these, 10 people arefunctional social workers. While this may seema lot, in actual fact it constitutes a ratio of 9/10children per social workers, double the ratiosuggested by the Ministry of Social Affairs inits guidelines on childcare institutions. Inaddition to the social workers there is: 1 headof the institution, 3 heads of sections, 5managers, 7 care staffs, 2 instructors, one headof dormitory and 14 support staff. While it mayseem that a great part of its budget goes intosalaries, Pati in terms of staffing, actually onlycomes close to the actual requirement forrunning a residential care facility for thatnumber of children. In terms of salaries, wagesare low as for all civil servants with the highestpaid official receiving USD 250 per month.

In terms of services for children, food wasby far the biggest expenditure under the 2005budget, at USD 36,700 or about 60% of theallocated budget for services to children.

page

261


Education costs amounted to about USD 7,000or 11% of that budget, trainings (USD 7,400or 12%), transport and support costs for homevisits (USD 4,700 or 7.7%), health (USD 3,400or 5.5%) and recreation (USD 1,200 or 2%).

The facilities are in almost all respectsmuch better than those found in otherchildcare institutions including governmentones. Children are housed in cottages of about16 children divided into bedrooms occupiedby 3-4 children on average. No adults live inthe cottage but the house of the care staff islocated in the compound and nearby thecottage for which they have responsibility. Inthat regard, this institution has a similar lay outthan UPRS with carers not living with thechildren but unlike UPRS the care staff actuallylive on site and are interacting closely with thechildren in their care. All children have theirown beds and bedding and each cottage has 3separate bathrooms and toilets meaning thateach bathroom and toilet is shared by 5children. As with other institutions, childrenfrom different school levels are placed togetherto ensure that the older ones can take care ofthe younger ones and particularly make surethat they are able to clean their rooms andtake care of themselves.

The fact that Pati it is deemed a model isnot merely due to the fact that it has animpressive budget and some good facilities andhuman resource. There is no doubt that thanksto the creativity of its head, and the care andattention she and other staffs have put intotheir work, services provided to children aremuch more professional and there is a real

attempt at considering not only the physicalbut also the psycho-social needs of children.

In terms of professional practice, Patiimplements most of the DEPSOS Guidelinesfor the Provision of Child Care in Institutionsand its approach mirrors that set out in theManual for the standardization of the Socialassistance institutions which we saw earlier inSection IV.

Its process for the admission of childrenbegins with outreach activities to thecommunities. Teams go down to communitieswhich are deemed particularly ‘suitable’ to‘socialise’ the activities of the childcareinstitutions and to select potential candidates.Referrals are received from schools andcommunity leaders. Children and their familiesare assessed for their suitability in terms ofthe criteria set by the institution including anassessment of the economic and socialcondition of the family of the potentialcandidate. The criteria used by the institutionfor selection include parental status with apriority given to orphans and single parentchildren as well as ‘neglected children’ andchildren from ‘broken up’ families. Anotherpriority in the criteria for selection is age withchildren of primary school age being focusedon in particular because, as explained by thehead of the institution,

“Primary school children are still small andare easier to shape, provide direction to andguide. With children who are already atjunior or even senior high school level, theyalready have mixed with a wide range ofpeople and their behaviour has already


page

262

shaped by outside influence before theycome to the institution. This makes providingguidance to them a lot harder.”

Other criteria used for the selection ofcandidates include the extent to which familytake responsibility for the child, the schoolperformance and the child’s own enthusiasmat entering the institution. Children who fulfilother criteria including being from a family thatis economically challenged, have been rejectedin the past if they did not also perform well atschool. This was explained as follows,

“I always take in consideration the ‘input’ and‘output’. If the ‘input’ is rotten, it’s like cassava…youcan try to do whatever you want with it, at the endit still smells bad; even though you may try to sellit, you won’t be able to do so or if you are able to,the price will certainly have to be low. So we reallyneed to be selective, if the criteria are not fulfilledwe simply reject (the candidate).”

If the particular child fulfils the criteria, heor she will be registered. Pati has a long waitinglist of children waiting to enter the institutionincluding 22 children (13 girls and 9 boys) whowere registered. All of these children are ofprimary school age and 17 of them still haveboth parents.

In addition to the above criteria, the childshould not have a disability which could be ‘anobstacle’ to physical activities. Finally, theappropriate documentation should be availableincluding the declaration of financial incapacityby the head of the village, a letter ofrecommendations from the local branch of thesocial affairs office and even, a letter from thehead of the village certifying that the child isnot yet married. A process called ‘caseconferencing’ will be used to determinewhether a child is suitable to be admitted andonce the child is selected, to determine whohis/her carer will be, which social worker willbe his/her case worker and which cottage thechild will live in. The child will be then be ‘calledup’ and can be brought by his or her parent orby a teacher, local leader or a staff from thelocal branch of the social affairs office. In termsof home location, approximately half of thechildren in Pati are from the same district with

the half coming from another district. One childsummarised the process as,

“…the care staffs go looking in thevillages… the head of the village looks forthe parents…the care staff speaks with thehead of the village, the head of the villagespeaks to the parents… the care staffspeaks to the parents…”

While staffs in the institution spoke of theimportance of family based care and that itwas generally better for children to be caredby their families, it was also clear that wherethe family was deemed ‘too poor’ to careproperly for their children, in particular payfor their education and provide a standard ofliving that was deemed suitable, the institutionwould see the child’s best interest as beingtaken into the institution. As one staffexplained,

“If the parents do not want to place theirchild in the institution, we clearly are notgoing to make them because in reality thebest thing is for care to be provided withinthe family. But we explain to those parentsthat should they feel not be able any longerto pay for their child’s education or providereasonable standards of life to their child,we are ready to help.”

In this context, what is understood as helpis not providing assistance to the family so theycan care for their child appropriately butinstead for the child to be able to access betterstandards of life through placement in theinstitution.

Once a child is admitted, that boy and girlwill enter a 7 day orientation period. Duringthat time, the child is introduced to theinstitution and to the carers as well as otherchildren. This period is used also to seewhether the child will be able to adapt to theinstitution. This is the period where theinstitution assesses whether the child gets usedto the place and stops crying or continues tobe distraught and ask for his/her parent.

This is also the period during which thechild is introduced to the institution’s rules andwhat rights and obligations he or she has withinthat placement. This is explained in front of

page

263


the person who brought the child, whether aparent or another adult that took charge ofbringing the child. The child’s rights includereceiving assistance from the institution untilhe or she graduates from senior high school.The child’s obligation is to follow all of therules, to study hard, and not to have a boyfriendor girlfriend. In addition, the child is requiredto enter technical/vocational school at thesenior high school level (SMK) and not thegeneral Senior High School (SMA). This isrequired in light of the economic situation ofthe child’s family as a child who has graduatedfrom SMK is thought to be more likely to findwork.

A formal contract is signed between thechildcare institution and the parents. It confirmsthat the parents willingly handed over theirchild to the institution, that they will continueto fulfil their parental responsibility accordingto the law and that the institution is obligatedto provide assistance to the child as thereplacement of the parents/guardian includingfood, a place to stay, education, and care inaccordance with the financial capacity of theinstitution. The agreement also confirms thefact that should the child violate the rules ofthe institution he or she will be send home.

The substance of that agreement and theprocess of selection and admission confirm thefact that in Pati as with other childcareinstitution assessed, the primary aim of theplacement is access to education. Theplacement is clear expected to run until thechild graduates from senior high school and achild who cannot adapt and follow the ruleswill be send home. The care situation of thechild is in itself not seen as key. While themajority of services it provided are collectiveand long term (until graduation), an individualassessment of the child is conducted andparticular needs or issues faced by the childare identified and discussed by a social workerassigned to a group of children (1 social workerfor 10 children). That assessment is basicallyto record what is the family situation of thechild as well as what are the possible problemsand needs of this particular child, strengths andweaknesses, as well as what assistance will beprovided and for what purpose. The child’s

physical condition, character particularlywhether she is shy or quiet, and the child’sschool performance constitutes some of themain factors that are assessed.

The fact that most services are clearlycollective also means that this assessment andthe ‘care plan’ it entails tends to be very genericin character.

Examples of what was written in thoseindividual assessments included,

“What is hoped to be achieved (by theplacement): to fulfil the needs of the child in areasonable manner. Results to be reached: thechild does well at school and is able to enterthe school of his/her choice. What is expectedof the child: to follow all the required activitiesin accordance with the schedule.”

Part of the initial assessment which iscarried out once the orientation period is over,is an assessment of the child’s academicpotential. As well as reviewing the records fromschool, a psychological test is done by theinstitution to determine whether the childshould be categorised as superior, average orinferior. Those that are categorised as ‘inferior’are then provided with extra lessons andguided by two staffs who ensure that that studytime is particularly supervised and supported.

Regular assessment is carried outperiodically, usually twice a week through thesocial counselling sessions carried out by theassigned social workers. These sessions seemto mainly provide an opportunity for the childto discuss any problems faced to their caseworker and ask for support from them. Notesare regularly kept on the children’sdevelopment although these tended to be quitegeneric in nature and in many cases a matterof ticking a check list (progress at school, health,appetite etc.)

Generally, it seems that progress at schooland good adaptation in the institution is takenas the mark that all is well. In that regard, thework of the social workers and counsellorsseemed to be about facilitating the placementand the child’s education but did not considerwhether the child’s placement was appropriateor whether there could be other critical needs


page

264

which may need to be addressed. As with otherchildcare institutions, such needs wouldprimarily arise when they resulted in problems,with the child’s behaviour or progress in termsof education.

In addition to the social workers whichwere each assigned responsibility for ‘casemanaging’ ten children, the institution alsoprovided 7 care staffs who lived with theirfamilies in houses next to the children’scottages. 1 care staff had responsibility over15 children with male and female care staffsupervising children of the same sex. Theprimary role of the care staff is to ensure thesmooth running of children’s daily activities,making sure their physical needs are met thatincluding the provision of toiletries, medicineif the child is sick with a common problem,sorting out the fights between children andgenerally providing monitoring to make surethat all runs smoothly.

While relations were found to be goodand generally relaxed with between thechildren and the care staff as well as with thesocial workers, these staff were seen to fillprimarily a ‘guidance role’, motivating thechildren to study hard, to behave well, toperform their religious practice, do theyhomework, respect one another, ensure thatthey take care of their appearance andfollowing the schedules on time. These rolesthey fulfilled in a positive way and violence ordemeaning behaviour was not used ortolerated. The children were found to at easewith the staff and behaved with the confidenceof children who know that the staffs are actingin their best interest. This was the case evenwith the daily “appel’’ which is meant to provide‘motivation’ to the children each day beforeeating the evening meal and clearly bored thechildren. At the same time, it was seen as partof the efforts of the staff including the socialworkers to provide further guidance on theimportance of studying or religious practiceor more general motivation about life.

When it came to the most private mattersthough, particularly in relation to personalfeelings, it was clear that children shared onlythese with their friends within the institution.

The emphasis on children taking care of eachother in the institution and acting like brothersand sisters while adult carers supervised andprovided guidance also meant that childrenwould tend to rely on each others for fulfillingemotional needs unless major problemsoccurred in which case they would go to theirsocial workers. The need that children mayhave for love, emotional attachment andsupport was not identified as key. Mostly,children were seen as having reached a stagewhere they do not ‘need’ love from theirparents or can do without. In that regard, itwas striking that the concept of a child needingthe love of parents was referred to, both bystaffs in the institution and by one schoolteacher only in relation to children who wereso young as to ‘still need’ their parents. Other

children were deemed grown up enough sothey would primarily need guidance andphysical as well as psychological support.

The institution saw the older children’sresponsibility to care for the younger ones, notjust in terms of ensuring the child’s personalcare such as bathing, washing clothes but alsoas acting as a big ‘sister’ or ‘brother’ to thechild. In many ways this is where the emotionalattachments were expected to come fromrather then from carers. In that context, Patiactually operated very much like a boardingschool without a school. While adultsupervision and even individual care and

page

265


attention were provided, this was primarilyaimed to ensure that the children would beable to do well in their life in the institutionand in particular in terms of their education. Itdid not look at the child in terms of his or herindividual social and emotional developmentoutside of that context.

This was evidenced both in the way theinstitution handled the care of the youngestchildren and the children’s relationship withtheir families.

At the time of the research, a 6 year oldgirl had entered the institution for a period oforientation. The child’s parents had separatedand her mother had placed her in theinstitution as a result. The child cried herselfto sleep every night and it was the older girlsthat consoled and cared for her. In that littlegirl’s case, the attention and support providedby the older girls was indeed very visible andtouching. Understanding her distress, the girlswere observed taking turns to ensure that shewas never left out at any time, always cuddledher, involved her in the activities and cheeredher up. The institution allowed in this case thegrandmother of the child to visit more oftenthan usual to support the child’s adaptation toher new environment and so she was allowedapproximately once every ten days to visit thechild and spend time with her. Whether thischild’s placement was in her best interest wasconsidered primarily in terms of whether shecould adapt or not. The question was, wouldshe stop missing her mum and would she startto settle in, not was this the best approach tosupporting that particular child or couldalternative care arrangements be provided.

This was found to be the case not just asa result of the fact that the paradigm ofresidential care as the best option for childrenwas well entrenched in that institution. WhilePati, unlike other institutions assessed, had tenfunctional social workers and 7 carers, in actualfact few had any knowledge or training in childcare or child development. Only one socialworker had ever received specific training insocial work practice and not related to children.Of the ten functional social workers, 7 had ahigh school diploma. While five staff had

actually studied social work or social welfareat university, only one of them was worked asfunctional social workers, the others workedprimarily as administrators. The rest of the staffhad an educational background that includededucation, economy, finance, civiladministration, governance and forestry. Outof the 10 functional social workers, only 3 hadhad previous experience of working in aresidential institution before entering Pati andnone had worked in a childcare institution. Inaddition, only three members of staff in the 34had any experience of working with childrenbefore entering the institution.

This situation was clearly frustrating to thehead of the institution who, as a result of theway the government social service systemoperates, had little control over the placementof staffs in her institution nor over the selectionof candidates. As one staff explained,

“All of the civil servants here were droppedoff from headquarters…just recently wereceived two graduates from STKS (thegovernment School of Social Work), one apsychologist. They are new graduates whojust finished their exams. Before we hadpeople that were moved from Irian,Bengkulu, Lampung, Aceh, all of them justget dropped on us from headquarter, theywere never requested.

Even for those who are graduates of theGovernment of Social Work, there is noguarantee that they will have received evenbasic training in child development andchildcare, let alone had working experience ofcaring for children. As a result, understandingthe children’s crucial stages of development,the role that attachment plays in thatdevelopment or best practices in care weresimply not part of the criteria used to selectthose who would be expected to play a keyrole and make some significant decisions aboutthe lives of children. Childcare, even within aprofessional government institution is stillconsidered simple, something for which noparticular skills or knowledge are required, butis by product of managing children while theyaccess education.


page

266

The fact that ‘care’ was seen to play sucha small role even in the context of the muchmore professional and well resourcedinstitution that is Pati, highlight a fundamentalflaw in the understanding and approach toalternative care. This was highlighted clearly bythe institution’s approach to children’srelationships with their families.

In one regard, Pati represented a significantadvance from other childcare institutions.Parents were still clearly ‘responsibilized’ fortheir children even after they were placed inresidential care. To ensure that this crucialresponsibility is not broken by the placementand that parents are aware of their children’sprogress and involved in the outcome, the headof the institution put in place regular meetingtimes for children’s parents at the institution.Once every three months, parents are invitedto come to meet with the staff and discussprogress both in their children’s lives and intheir own situation. These regular meetings arenot only provided they are facilitated by theinstitution which provides Rp 60,000 (USD 6)for the parent that comes to covertransportation costs and make up for themnot being able to work on that day. For manyfamilies, without such assistance they wouldsimply not be able to attend. In addition toreviewing children’s progress, a number ofactivities are provided for parents includingsessions on babies and children’s health, smallbusiness skills, social networking and issuesincluding dealing with teenage children. Thosemeetings represent a very important way forthe parents to remain in touch with theinstitution although they do not always meanthat the parents will be able to spend timewith their child, as the children tend to be atschool and the parents are in the meeting formuch of that time. It nonetheless ensures thatparents feel they have a stake in the progressof their child and are able to speak with staffand discuss issues that may have arisen.

While this represents a very positive stepon the part of the institution to ensure thatchildren and their families remain in contact,on the other hand, it was disappointing to findthat regular relations between them outside

of these visits were, paradoxically, restricted.While in principle it was stated that parentscould visit anytime, it was clear that they werenot encouraged to do so as it was feared thatit would disrupt the education of the child andmay be even initiate jealousies from childrenwhose parents did not visit with such frequency.

As one staff explained, “Parents are notrestricted and they can visit their child anytime,but it is better if they do so at the regular settimes because the institution already schedulesmeeting with parents once every three months andonce after lebaran when they come to celebratewith us.” 3

Children were also only allowed to gohome once a year, for lebaran and were notallowed to do so for school holidays. Theinstitution felt that it was better for them tofollow the educational activities that they hadarranged for them during those periods. It wasalso stressed by some staff that the institutionwas not ‘a hostel’ whereby children could gohome whenever they felt like it. This echoedvery much the attitude of other childcareinstitutions and confirmed a real lack ofunderstanding of the important role familyrelations play for children. The head of theinstitution on the other hand pointed to somemore practical issues,

“In reality, I would have difficulties inexplaining the budget from anadministrative point of view if the childrenwent home for the holidays. If they go homebut the budget still provides for their livingcosts during that period, who is going to eatthe food?”

Behind this statement lies the reality thatallocated government budgets are generallyvery inflexible and in many cases the head ofthe institution has had to deal withconsiderable bureaucracies to justify usingfunds to carry out activities which were clearlyin the best interest of the children and in somecases, even supported by government policiessuch as assistance to children in their families.But it also underlines the more troubling factthat children’s relationships with their familiescontinue to be seen as optional and they are

page

267


made possible when they fit with the prioritiesof the institution rather than vice versa.

One of the cases identified during theresearch really highlighted what this meant inreality. In that case the boy was placed in theinstitution after he had heard about thefacilities and the opportunities in terms ofeducation provided by the institution. His familyis very poor, his father who had workedpreviously as a tailor could not carry out thiswork anymore as a result of his seriouslydeteriorating eye sight. Their house is verysimple and the family has to live day by daylooking for opportunities to make ends meet.Despite this, the parents of the child did notwant to place the child in institutional care.The father in particular was very close to hisson and did not want to be separated fromhim. The boy insisted and eventually the familyagreed although not without considerablesadness as explained by the child,

“My dad couldn’t let me go… he couldn’tsleep for days before I went …’be careful’he said, ‘your mum and dad are not therewith you, only carers’….2 days after I wentthere, he came to see me… he wascrying…I was crying….I asked him, so whatdo you want me to do?... he said…well juststay there…it’s already too late…”

As the institution did not want the fathertoo visit to often he had to find his own wayof making sure his son was alright,

“ we can rarely go the institution…I wasonce told off... ‘you have to understand thesituation in the institution…later there willbe other (children) who will be jealous… ifyou want to come and have a look, you cando so during the set times for visits (onceevery 3 months)… so I go there and watchhim from the road from time to time in themorning and at lunch time (when he goesout or comes back to school)… we meeton the road…that’s already enough…thething is I can see him… I feel relieved”.

While this family’s life is indeed precarious,both parents are working hard at ensuring theirchildren’s well being including their education.The institution provided some livelihood

support to the family in the form of a goat butit had to be sold. Despite the daily struggle,the family’s two daughters are still at school injunior and senior high school respectively; aconsiderable achievement in thosecircumstances. It is not only the parents whoare missing the boy but the sisters their brother.Meanwhile the children in the institution aremissing out, not only on the love and emotionalbonds their families provide but also oneverything that a home environment actuallycan provide, even when it is a very basic home.As one child said,

“We miss our parents… only one comesfor the (regular meeting)…other can’tcome…we miss the atmosphere at home.”

By limiting relationships between children,their families and their communities, theinstitution seems to be working really at oddwith its own stated purpose of encouragingfamilies to take responsibilities and itsrecognition of how difficult reintegration forthe child will be, when he or she inevitably hasto go home after graduation from high school.As the head of the institution herself explainedabout the process called ‘resocialisation’, whichinclude 3 months of vocational training beforethe child is sent home after graduation,

“We offer this because we recognise thepsychological impact that leaving care canhave on children. You can imagine, childrenhere get used to eating well, sleepingproperly, they have plenty of friends, andthen they have to go back to their families,which I am sorry to say, and I apologise forsaying so, but as well as being really limited,for many children these are one and thesame with the shed for the animals. This iswhat we pay attention to and we try toprepare the children mentally before we letthem go by providing a resocializationprocess for 3 months.”

By not ensuring that children are nottotally disconnected with their own world, notjust emotionally but physically and socially, theinstitution simply postpones an even biggersense of alienation when the time to go homeand make a life in that reality finally comes. Forchildren, this time will mean becoming


page

268

strangers everywhere, their own homesand the institutions where they spentconsiderable parts of their childhoods.

In many respects though, themanagement in Pati demonstrated athoughtful approach to its work and realcreativity in the way it delivered servicesfor children. The head of the institutionand some of its senior staff had clearlyunderstood the residential caredilemma. If residential care is aboutproviding particularly poor children withan institution so they can access aneducation and more adequate standardsof life, there are countless other childrenout there who need to be taken fromtheir families and placed in care. As thehead of the institution pointed out, theplacement of one child does not solvethe problem for the other children within thatfamily, let alone for the other children withinthat community and the solution cannot be toput them all in residential care. The fact thatgovernment rules do not allow more than onechild per family to be placed in the sameinstitution as also meant that assistance to thefamily had to be provided. As a result, Pati hastaken on the challenge of providing servicesto the families of children who are in residentialcare as well as some children who remain withtheir families in the community.

The institution provides small loans to 36families of some of the children to fosterlivelihood initiatives. The loans can be repaidover 13 payments and are made withoutinterests. It has also provided direct assistanceto 49 children (23 children in 2007). Theassistance is usually for one year and is focusedon supporting children who are in vocationalschool and whose families are facing seriouseconomic difficulties. To make sure the childrencontinue with their education, the institutionpays for school fees, covers other school costsincluding books, uniforms, and shoes as well asproviding food supplements. These children areoften referred to by schools that identifiedchildren whose families are struggling to keepup with the costs of the education of theirchildren. The criteria to receive the assistanceis, again that the child performing well at school.

While the assistance providing by Patihighlights its understanding of the role it shouldplay as a social welfare agency, a role that goeswell beyond providing residential care services,it remains very ad hoc in nature and constitutesa very small part of the services it provides. In2007, it allocated Rp 28,440,000 (USD 3000)for assistance to children outside of theinstitution, a very small percentage of its overallbudget for services for children and a fractioncompared to the USD 60,000 plus, it spent ondirect assistance to the children in residentialcare for that period, let alone the USD 350,000it spends on running that facility for a year.

Beyond the fact that it only reaches a smallnumber of children and for a short period oftime, this assistance, as with the other formsof assistance provided to the families ofchildren who reside in Pati, is not provided inorder to support family based care. Its focus isalmost entirely on access to education. Whilethere are clear links between the two have wehave seen throughout this research, Pati’sassistance is not aimed either on preventing achild entering institutional care or onsupporting the reintegration of a child whoalready is in care, by empowering the family tocare for the child themselves. These schemesare run quite independently of the caresituation of these children and are additional

page

269


support for children from families who arefacing real economic difficulties. It is not to saythat these schemes are not needed, quite tothe contrary. But at the same time this raisesthe fundamental question of whether theemphasis put on providing residential care for95 children at such an enormous cost wouldnot be best served by providing direct financialand psycho-social support to the thousandsof families that are struggling to provide and,in some cases, care, for their children. In thatcontext, there is an urgent need for a properanalysis of the real cost of institutional care inIndonesia compared with the cost of providingdirect support to families in the community.While evidence from other countries acrossthe globe point to the fact that institutionalcare is generally far more costly, particularly inthe long term, in the context of Indonesia nosuch analysis has been carried out. In thatregard, Pati does provide a very useful exampleof what a professional and adequatelyresourced residential care facility really cost.

Footnotes:1 The full report of this assessment is also available with this research. See Appendix I.2 The institution was established as ‘Panti Asuhan (PA) Fajar Harapan’ and changed its name to Panti Social Asuhan

Anak (PSAA) Tunas Bangsa in 1986 when it was taken outside of the ‘children and family welfare project’ and cameunder the direct authority of the national Ministry of Social Affairs.

3 Wawancara Ketua Seksi PAS, No. Field Record: PSAA TUNAS BANGSA /PATI/JAWA TENGAH/1/2.7.6.

What is clear is that virtually none of theagencies which established the childcareinstitutions assessed under this research wouldhave the budget to run such institutions and itis not likely that the central government wouldbe able to run many such facilities itself.

From that perspective, Pati raises somevery important questions about the future ofsocial assistance to particularly vulnerablechildren. While there is no doubt that itprovides far more professional services thanall of the childcare institutions assessed in thisresearch, its approach is in essence very similarto the others. Its senior managers haverecognised a real paradox in the provision ofservices for so called ‘neglected’ children butas a social agency it has stopped short fromactually asking the right question so that aproper diagnosis can be done and appropriatesolutions found. It is within its grasp, though,to reconsider its role and approaches and tobecome a real model for the provision ofalternative care in Indonesia.


page

270

“Someone That Matters” | XV Key Findings

page

271

XV. Key Findings

The lack of ‘care’ in Care

One of the most striking findings from the research is the small role that careactually plays in childcare institutions. As we have seen, the terminology of care usedby staff, and as understood by children, tends to relate mainly to the ‘management’ ofchildren, or to administering to them as part of a process of providing access to education,whether formal or religious. Respondents (children, staff, managers and others) sawchildren being ‘raised’ (‘memelihara’ a term also used for pets), kept or provided with aplace to stay (‘menampung’), educated (‘mendidik’), taken care of (‘merawat’), their costsmet (‘membiayai’), guided (‘membimbing) or assisted (‘menyantuni’). Caring for children(‘mengasuh) tended to be used in the context of ‘taking care of’ rather than ‘caring for’.


page

272

The emphasis on providing accessto education as the primary aim formost of the institutions combined withan understanding of children’s needs asprimarily material (food, a place to stayand the costs of education) or religious/spiritual (religious teaching andpractice) means that little attention isgiven to children’s emotional,developmental or psycho-social needs.This was reflected particularly acutely whenthe institutions were assessed in relationto their professional practice in the care ofchildren. Children’s identification, selectionand placement almost always related totheir schooling needs. The need for aplacement to be reviewed was onlyunderstood in terms of a child’sperformance at school or in terms ofreligious adherence rather than the child’schanging care needs. None of the childcareinstitutions had really assessed whether achild needed residential care in the firstplace or whether a more suitable familybased alternative was available, whether inthe child’s own extended family or inanother family. Equally, after the child hadbeen placed in the institution, there wasno attempt at assessing the changingsituation of his/her family, including thatfamily’s capacity to care, in order to reassesswhether a child needed to continue in theinstitution or not. This was deemed clearlyirrelevant to the placement. Where someform of review of placement did occur, itwas invariably as the result of a childbreaking what were deemed fundamentalrules of the institution, not performing atschool, not being able to adapt to life inthe institution or the child actually runningaway.

Placement was invariably based onthe schooling period and as suchchildren were admitted from the outsetfor the entire period of schooling untilgraduation from senior high school.

This meant generally that theplacement would last anything from 1 to12 years depending on the age at whichthe child entered the institution. As wehave seen a few children actually stayedbeyond high school and some even for alife time as was the case for children ininstitutions run by the Hidayatullah networkwhere the children are trained to becomethe organisation’s ‘Cadres’, the nextgeneration of staff and religious teachersto other children in either the sameinstitution or another under the network.While there were a few institutions whichaccepted children who were younger andhad not yet reached school age, thesetended to be the exceptions but thepurpose of the placement remained veryclearly on accessing education.

In such a context, individual careplans identifying the aims of theplacement, agreeing and reviewing thepurpose of a child’s placement, includingthrough discussions with that particularboy or girl, or planning for the period ofplacement including for its terminationwere simply not considered in the vastmajority of childcare institutions.

The situation in relation to the fewchildcare institutions that emphasized thecare role and family environment such asSOS Desa Taruna, Dr Lukas but also SayapKasih, an institution that cares for disabledchildren, was clearly different. Whileeducation remained an element of theservices provided, at least for the first two,it was the care giving which was prioritised.As a result providing individual care andattention but also, developing secure andloving relationships was seen as a key partof the services provided by theseinstitutions. On the other hand theseinstitutions also saw their roles as ‘replacing’the biological family. Children’s placementwas seen as permanent and the relationship


page

273

with biological families which many of thesechildren naturally had were clearlydiscouraged except in the case of SayapKasih. As a result, in those institutions too,the review of a child’s actual placement wassimply not considered.

The emphasis given in most of theinstitutions on providing for either materialor educational needs (formal or religious)also meant that very few institutionsactually saw their role as providingindividual services to individual children butinstead providing the same access to food,a place to stay and education to all childrenwithout other differentiation than, in someinstances, age and gender. Individual careconcepts that would seek to respond tochildren’s differing needs and situationswere generally not available and notconsidered. As we have seen, it did notmean that institutions did not provide insome instances individual responses tochildren, but generally these were focusedon responding after the fact to what wasseen as ‘a problem’. A child being ill, a childdropping out of school, breaking the rules,not integrating properly or not progressingwere generally responded to at an individuallevel. Children were mostly recognisedas individuals only when they weredeemed to be problematic. Children’sdevelopment was considered in terms oftheir adapting and integrating wellwithin the confines of the institution aswell as in terms of their education ratherthan in terms of a child’s personal andindividual well being and growth.Contact with families was generallydiscouraged except for the annual religiousfestivals and occasional short holidays butgenerally families were seen as potentially‘distracting’, ‘disturbing’, ‘imparing’ theprocess of learning and even in some casesnegatively influencing the child.

In that sense, the majority of childcareinstitutions were strikingly similar and could

be characterised not so much as childcareinstitutions but as dormitories or hostelsfor children. This was found moreover tobe the case not only for the privatechildcare institutions but also for thegovernment ones. The majority of theseinstitutions enable children to accesseducation in the community where theyare located and simply provide a place tostay and the means to live and study. Faith-based institutions additionally providespiritual and moral guidance andsupervision, ensuring children develop interms of their faith and their religiouspractices and abide by them. In the case ofthe Islamic boarding schools where theschool is usually located within theinstitution, the children’s entire socialenvironment is provided and defined byreligion including, in some cases, thedetermination of their future and theirrelationships.

Because ‘caring’ was generally viewedand understood by the institutions as a by-product of children living in the institutionrather than as the primary aim of theplacement, it is not surprising that the needfor professional carers or even havingsufficient number of carers was notprioritised. The model used by most of theinstitution for ‘managing’ children was oftenreferred to as ‘familial’ meaning ‘informal’.Caring for children was deemed ‘simple’and therefore ‘the family way’ of doing thingusually meant that there would be a headof institutions, his wife or husband, a fewsupport staff and for those institutions thatalso ran schools, a number of teaching staffthat doubled up as ‘carers’. The skills andqualifications sought for those staff rarelyrelated to caring for children. Instead,teaching qualifications, particularly inreligious education, were prioritised in staffselection rather than professional skills inchild development and care. While thesituation was somewhat better in the


page

274

Government institutions and there wereusually at least some professional staff givenan explicit ‘caring’ role, with the notableexception of the DEPSOS Pati institution,staffs were in practice mainly ‘administering’to the children in particular in terms ofensuring compliance with rules and applyingsanctions for violations.

As a result, almost all of the childcareinstitutions had very low ratio of staff perchild, at best reaching 1 staff for 10 childrenbut for the majority, well below this. Inaddition, most staff occupied a range ofpositions at the same time and few wereassigned to actually work with the children.In most institutions there wereconsiderably fewer adults working fulltime with the children than theirorganograms or public profilesindicated. The picture provided by theoverwhelming majority of childcareinstitutions surveyed is that of childrencaring for themselves with adults caringprimarily for the institution.

It is important to note that this wasnot necessarily as a result of neglect or lackof concern on the part of the institutionsor staff but rather of the fact that most didnot recognise the vital role that parentalcare and secure, meaningful and lastingrelationships with significant adults play ina child’s development. This was particularlyobvious in relation to the majority ofinstitutions’ response to children’srelationship with their families. The factthat contact between children and familieswas extremely restricted in almost all ofthe childcare institutions, and usually seenby managers and staff as potentially‘distracting’ or ‘undermining’ of theobjectives of the institutions, reallyhighlighted this significant and worrying lackof understanding. While on the one handthe majority of the institutions operatedlike ‘boarding schools’ in providing little

more than a place to stay and eat and payingfor a child’s education, in reality children inboarding schools are able to go back homeat the very least for the school holidays. Inthe childcare institutions however, this wasgenerally not seen as desirable except onea year for a very limited number of days,usually at Lebaran or other major religiouscelebration such as Christmas. At best,regular contact was not prohibited but itwas also usually not facilitated. At worst, itwas actually prohibited or activelydiscouraged. The fact that the researchteam met children who had not seentheir families for up to five or even nineyears in some cases, is seriouslydisturbing.

The research also showed thatdespite an overt emphasis on supportingorphans, almost 90% of children in thechildcare institutions surveyed, still hadat least one parent with more than 56%that had both parents. It was clear fromthe research that the great majority ofthese children were neither parentlessnor were they abandoned by theirfamilies. Instead they were placed in theinstitutions by their families primarilyas a result of the economic situation inwhich they found themselves, probablycombined, for some, with their socialsituation. The situation of children in someof the life stories provided in this reporthighlighted also remarriage and the socialstigma as well as the economic pressureattached to being a single parent as playinga role in the placement of a number of cases.In the majority of cases however, it wasclearly the parents’ wishes for their childrento access better conditions of life and aproper education that seemed to have beenthe primary reason for their placement incare. Further research is certainly neededto fully understand the likely complexreasons why families place children ininstitutional care in Indonesia. At the same


page

275

time, it was clear that with the exceptionof cases where children had been abusedby their families or rejected usually by astep family, parents and families had notrelinquished their role or responsibilitiestowards their children and were still willingto support them.

The real limitations placed on childrenin the institutions maintaining properrelationships not only with their parentsbut with their siblings, extended family andtheir friends in the community raises thecrucial question of the role these childcareinstitutions see themselves as playing. Theplacement of a child in a childcareinstitution is not an absolute transferof custody that erases the obligationsand roles parents play towards theirchildren. Even if a child is to live for anumber of years in a residential institution,it is still his or her parents that are primarilyresponsible for that boy or girl. The strictrestrictions on meetings betweenparents and children, as describedabove, instead undermine the crucialresponsibility of parents and riskfundamentally alienating the child fromthe family and community to which sheor he will ultimately return. Yet theinstitution’s emphasis on providingeducation until the child graduates and theclear agreement that the child is to leaveupon finishing senior high school alsoshowed that the majority of institutionswere clear that they were not providingpermanent replacement for families, exceptfor the two childcare institutions whosemandate was actually to do so. By notencouraging or supporting and even insome cases actively discouraging meaningfulcontact and relationships between thechildren and their families, the institutionsare at risk of fundamentally underminingthe bonds that are crucial not only to theemotional well being and growth of thechild but essential to their socialisation and

their successful reintegration into theircommunity after leaving the institution. Theresearch in that regard raises someimportant questions about the impact thatsuch prolonged separation from key carersand from the ‘normalising’ environment offamilies and communities can have onchildren longer term, particularly whensecure figures of attachment and care arenot provided or prioritised in theseinstitutions. Further research is very muchneeded on the impact that suchinstitutionalisation could be having on thechildren and what outcomes await themafter graduation when they leave theinstitution and are having to reintegrate intofamilies and communities which in manyways have become ‘alien’ to them.

Another consequence of theinstitutions viewing their role primarily asproviding for children’s material needs, inparticular access to education, was thatmanaging children was usuallyperceived as a matter of control anddiscipline. The institutions’ staffsgenerally saw their role as ensuring thesmooth operation of the institutionsrather than the positive growth anddevelopment of the children placed intheir care. If children were left to take careof one another, they were deemed to


page

276

require adult supervision and control toensure their compliance with the rules andregulations. In that context, ‘guidance’,‘monitoring’, ‘discipline’, ‘someone to watchover them’ were clearly understood as‘care’ tasks and seen as essential tochildren’s well being. In most cases this wasseen to be the primary responsibility ofthose who were assigned ‘care’ functions.‘Care’ in that context was alwaysunderstood in terms of responding toproblems although usually only in relationto what were seen as ‘problems’ in termsof the running of the facility rather thanactual problems the child may be facing orfeeling. These tended to relate mainly todisciplinary issues, the breaking of rules,refusal to integrate or behave according toset standards or not performing at school.The childcare institutions’ relationship withthe children in their care was strikinglyillustrated in that regard by the admissionprocess which entailed primarily a ‘layingdown the law’ process by which the childand sometimes his or her family’sagreement to abide by the institutions ruleswas secured. This emphasis on a contractof good behaviour was usually very onesided on the part of the institution andwhile there were some institutions whichin turn referred to what the child couldexpect in return, it clearly set therelationship between the child and theinstitution as one of power. The child getsto access education and basic necessitiesand in return the child is to abide by therules at all time, must be grateful, well-behaved, must adapt to the place or he orshe will be expelled and their educationended. There was no room for negotiationor for discussing approaches, hopes, fearsor expectations nor were opportunitiesprovided for children’s voices or choices.The contract was for providing room, boardand school and in return the child was

expected to fit into the needs andrequirements of the institution.

This ‘contract’ in turn provided the keyrole for the staff in the institutions, managingthe agreement to ensure that all ransmoothly and rules were not broken. Forthe faith based institutions, the contract alsoentailed abiding faithfully to all the religiousrules and becoming an obedient andproficient follower. Children’s totalcompliance was seen as crucial not only tothe good running of the institution but alsoto the very mission that the institution hadset for itself. The fact that ‘many children’were waiting in the wings to enter theinstitution in order to access educationmeant that children could be expelled ifcompliance was not reached. While theinstitution’s manager and staff did feel sorryin some instances for the child who wasexpelled, the issue was not where the childwould go or who would take care of thechild once expelled. It was clear for all thatthe child would return to his or her familythus demonstrating further that the issueof the child’s care was never at the forefrontof the institution’s mission.

The emphasis in most institutions onchildren being compliant and obedient asthis was what was ‘best for them’ meantadult supervision, monitoring and controlinvariably focused on addressing children’slack of compliance. This was seen as theprimary role for staff in the institutions andin particular the head of the institution andcare staff. When children broke rules,fought, did not adapt or where issues aroseat schools, adult staff would intervene andthe child would be called up. This was theone time where otherwise collectiveservice delivery tended to becomeindividualised and in itself this obviouslycreated a problematic dynamic. To ensurechildren’s compliance, most of theinstitutions ran quite disciplinarian system


page

277

either in style or in terms of the sanctions.Government childcare institutions generallytended to have a rather militaristic style ofoperating with ‘appel’, ‘call-up’, ‘lining up’,‘public hearings’ and in terms of sanctions,push ups, roll over, crawling and running oreven in one instance collective beatings.Faith based institutions with strong regimesof rules and practices, in particular someof the more traditional Islamic based childcare institutions emphasized abiding byreligious rules and teachings. Sanctionsusually involved further religious teachingsand exhortation, caning, hitting, publichumiliation by shaving heads or soaking indirty water. The use of violence in particularphysical and psychological punishment wasfound to be prevalent in the great majorityof institutions. Worryingly both staff andchildren had come to accept this as part ofthe normal daily life in the institutions andthe reasons for children violating the ruleswas never considered nor why, despite theuse of physical punishment, children wouldcontinue to break the rules. At the extremewere regimes of control and disciplinewhich left children feeling humiliated, angyand sad. Children would run away to escapeor would submit themselves knowing thatthis was the only avenue for them to securean education. There are serious concernsabout the ability of these models tomeet children’s developmental needsand enable them to grow into mature,responsible, active citizens. The practiceof forcing children to engage in violenceagainst each other as part of asanctioning process is particularlyproblematic.

On a more positive note, a fewinstitutions were found to be moving awayfrom the use of physical punishmentalthough in many instances staff ’sstatements in that regard were notcorroborated by children who reported thecontinous use of such sanctions. Still,

greater awareness at least in a handful ofthe institutions about the Child ProtectionLaw seemed to have led to somereconsideration. In others, the rethinkingseemed to have been triggered byparticularly serious cases where physicalpunishment was seen to have gone‘overboard’ and some staff had objected.The fact that in one institution a managerwas replaced as a result of his systematicuse of violence and complaints by bothchildren and staff is good news. The factthat he was then appointed to head theschool run by the founding organisation isnot.

Despite some positive signs in a fewinstances, it was deeply worrying to findthat only one institution out of the 37assessed under this research had a childprotection policy in place or any typeof mechanism to identify and respondto violence against children. Thissituation puts children in institutions in avery difficult and vulnerable situationbecause they are often cut off from theirfamilies and communities and there are nomechanisms in place for them to reportviolence against them, let alone to preventit from happening. They are left totallyunprotected and violence is left uncheckedwith accountability seemingly only beingtriggered in cases that are so sociallyrepugnant as to come to the attention ofthe surrounding community, as in the caseof a girl raped and made pregnant by a malecarer in one of the institutions.

Children clearly felt that humiliating anddegrading treatment including verbal abusewas just as bad as physical punishment andin some cases even worse. The constant‘belittling’ of children and pejorativereferences to their status as ‘neglected,abandoned children, orphans or childrenof destitute families’ in some of theinstitutions not only undermined


page

278

children’s self esteem and feelings ofdignity, it contrasted starkly with thehigh ethical and religious valuesprofessed by these institutions. Muchwork needs to be done to eradicateviolence in the childcare institutions andinstil not only respect for children asindividuals but support a shift from a highlydisciplinarian system of management to onewhich is based on positive forms of controland discipline. To achieve this will requirenot only far better understanding by thoseworking in the childcare institutions of childrights and child development but also thedevelopment of different roles andrelationships for adult carers so that ongoing and individual support for children isseen by them as their primary responsibilityrather than the enforcement of rules.

It was clearly not incidental that thechildcare institutions which focused onproviding a familial environment not just inname but in practice did not generally needto resort to such violence and that respectbetween children and their carers tendedto prevail without the use of violence.Children’s compliance was not seen to playsuch a key role in those institutions. Therewas also generally a much better ratio ofcarers to child enabling better relationshipsbetween them and the development oftrust and confidence needed to supportpositive forms of discipline.

Whose ‘best interest’?

The emphasis in almost all of thechildcare institutions assessed onproviding access to education meantthat almost none of them focused onchildren who may actually have aspecific need for alternative care, eitheras a result of violence in the family orother protection risks. While there werea few cases of children who had enteredcare as a result of suffering violence at the

hands of their family or who had beenabandoned, these children were notprioritised in any way and virtually nospecific services were provided for them.There were some exceptions to this suchas Sayap Kasih which focused on caring forchildren with severe disability and CalebHouse which focused on children affectedby the conflict in Maluku. In most instancesit was found that the childcare institutionswere not ready to care for children whohad any particular ‘needs’. This wasexplained by the institutions in terms ofthe limited number of staff operating in theinstitution and the lack of capacity torespond to ‘such needs’ or in some casesas simply not wanting ‘to bother’. In thatcontext, the selection criteria for childrenand the recruitment process put in placeby the great majority of institutions reallyhighlighted the fact that the needs of theinstitutions were given clear priority overthe needs of children.

This emphasis seemed to result partlyfrom institutions having made as theirprimary goal providing access to educationwhether formal or religious. Most of thechildcare institutions were found to be runaccording to the needs of the institutionor organisation. Filling quotas and inparticular replacing those children who leftcare as they had graduated from schoolwere the primary consideration in termsof selection. For the faith based institutionswhich aimed to develop the nextgeneration of its ‘Cadres’ or members, anadditional consideration was the needs ofthe organisation and the capacity of itsnetwork and institutions to absorb newrecruits. In addition to children having tobe of school age as the result of the focuson providing education, the most commonselection criteria among the childcareinstitutions surveyed was that children hadto be old enough to be able to ‘take care ofthemselves’.


page

279

The rationale behind this criteria wasinvariably explained in terms of the limitednumber of staff who could actually do the‘caring’ and therefore children wereexpected to be able to clean, wash andcontribute to the running of the institution.This could be taken to be a singularacknowledgement on the part of childcareinstitutions but it also highlighted quitestrikingly the basis on which‘care’ was understood to begiven. The research foundin fact that children weregenerally expected notonly to take care ofthemselves but also to domost of the caring forother children. Inaddition, in almost all ofthe institutions childrenwere obligated to carryout a range of chores thatwere not simply aboutlearning ‘life skills’ asoften presented butwhich were indeed crucial to the actualrunning of the institutions. While thereis no doubt that contributing to domesticchores can be an important way for childrento learn important skills as well as to learnresponsibility and feel that they arecontributing to their living environment, itwas found that in most of the institutionsthe children were not just providingsupport to adult staff but they wereactually carrying out work instead ofstaff. In other words, without them theinstitutions would simply not be able tooperate as they would not have been therequired support staff to clean, cook andwash. For a childcare institution with 111children to only have one cook, as wasfound in one of the Governmentinstitutions, meant that, in effect childrenhad to replace the extra staff that wereneeded to run this institution. The fact that

21 of the 36 childcare institution did nothave an assigned cook clearly highlightedthat children’s work was deemed part andparcel of the way these institutions wererun. Without this work, the institutionswould have had to hire more staff and assuch a vicious circle whereby staff were notseen as needed and children were made towork prevailed.

It was particularly interesting to notethat the argument advanced by many of theinstitutions for children’s placement was sothat they could not only get their educationpaid for but also so that they couldconcentrate on their studies properly as intheir homes they would have had tocontribute to their family’s domestic work.The fact that children spent a considerablepart of their days in the institutions doingchores or other work puts into questionssuch arguments. In one such institutionwhere education was meant to be theprimary focus, children were even calledcalled back in the middle of their schoollessons so that they could finish the cookingor cleaning in the institution. The fact alsothat in a number of institutions surveyed,children’s work was found to extendfurther to work carried out to contributeto the economy of the institution, raiseseven more problematic questions about the


page

280

extent to which these institutions are beingrun for children or by children. Whenchildren become not only the basis onwhich institutions can raise funds butalso the tools to do so, it raises seriousquestions not only about ethical andprofessional practice but also aboutrespect for children’s rights.

Children ‘taking care of themselves’ wasalso shown by the research to be literallytrue in the majority of institutions. The lackof focus on providing care or the belief thatit was primarily about providing a roof, foodand the school fees meant that not onlywas little attention paid to children’semotional and social needs but also thatthe adults’ focus was firmly fixed on whatwere seen as the needs of the institutionrather than that of the children. For someof the institutions it meant a busy head ofinstitution with a handful of staff carryingout a whole range of tasks from teachingat the local school, fundraising, localadvocacy and community relations, religiousleaderships, organising rosters, preparingchildren’s fees or snack money, working outthe food, admitting new children, sortingout school issues and other similar taskswhich monopolised most of their time. Evenin the institutions where given ‘carers’ wereidentified to manage a particular dormitoryor cottage, they were usually also combiningthat task with other roles such as teachingat the local school or being the cook. Thelack of staff in almost all of theinstitutions was found not to be just theresult of lack of funding but also of alack of recognition of the importanceof having responsible adults providingindividual care and attention to children.Even in government institutions where thenumber of staff was generally higher thanin private institutions, staff in charge ofcaring for individual children were rarelyfound and usually only on paper rather thanin practice. Those staff often saw their roles

in terms of ‘managing’ children and inparticular disciplining them rather thandeveloping personal and ongoing individualrelationships with them. This is particularlysuprising in a context where children’splacements are known to be long term.Under the present system, a child whoenters the institution is expected to bestaying there for the entire period ofschooling until high school which can be aconsiderable number of years. Thus on theface of it, developing longer termrelationships between the staff and childrencould be seen as easier and even morecrucial than if children were only placedthere temporarily.

As a result of this lack of adult ‘care’,children were not only required to takecare of themselves in most institutions butalso of other children. A system of ‘siblings’(younger children being cared by olderchildren) was used in almost all of theinstitutions so that the older children wouldguide, direct and manage the youngerchildren to ensure that daily activities ransmoothly and clothes got washed, childrenwere ready to go to school, got back ontime, and everybody would be ready to eator sleep at the given time. One of the morepositive findings from this research is theextent to which children actually took onthat care role far more extensively thanenvisaged by the adults and not justbetween children of different ages.Relationships between the children werefound to be extremely protective includingin mixed institutions that allowed contactsbetween boys and girls. While this did notrule out instances of bullying betweenchildren, the extent to which children wereprotective of one another and would worktogether to surmount not just the daily lifeproblems but fundamental emotional needswas clear to see in all of the institutions.Peers provided the most important andclosest relationships for children and


page

281

were invariably identified by them as thegreatest source of support and often theonly avenue for confiding personalproblems and challenges. When asked toidentify who they could talk to, who theyconfided in and who was the closest tothem, children always identified otherchildren in the institutions. Those bondswere also clearly seen when children feltparticularly down or faced seriouschallenges including missing their families,wanting to run away, not be able to standlife in the institution or being punished andsanctioned. Children rarely identified staffon the other hand as being close to themand when they did it was usually ininstitutions that had either focused on caregiving within a foster family or in institutionswhere a staff member had personallyinvested in relationships with some of thechildren.

Primary support though was providedby other children and that entailed not onlyconfiding in one another but also ‘managing’the adults, solving problems, and defendingone another against the ‘outside’, whetherteasing children at school or violentteachers and care staff. Children wereclearly drawing their resilience from thesecrucial relationships and it was also evidentthat the fear of being separated from thesekey relationships were also one of the mainchallenges for those whose graduation grewnear. The emotional impact of losing oncemore in their lives key figures of attachmentonce they graduated and of having to leavetheir friends behind, as well as the prospectof returning to families and communitiesthat had in many ways become strangersto them, raises some important issuesabout the impact of long terminstitutionalisation of children in Indonesiawhich needs to be looked into.

Ironically, while children were seen asso key to the running of most of the

institutions and entrusted with a rangeof tasks to encourage the developmentof ‘life skills’, children were found not tobe involved in any of the decisionsaffecting their lives in most of theinstitutions. The only exception to thisrelated to the choice of school particularlythe type of education (technical school orformal) when they were about to graduatefrom junior high school and about to enrolto senior levels. While there were a fewnotable exceptions, outside of the choiceof senior school, children generally werenot provided with any opportunities toeither express their views or ideas or toparticipate in the decisions that governedtheir daily lives. Children’s participation wassimply deemed not practical as adults feltthat they would be likely to ask for‘impractical’ things or request things whichthe institution could not afford. In someinstances it was seen as inappropriate as itwould ‘spoil’ them, or simply was just notan issue as the culture and emphasis insome of the institutions was on adultcontrol and children’s obedience. Childrenwere there to be ‘educated’ and thatentailed complying with set rules andregulations and following closely therequirements of their religion and thecommand of adults who knew better. Therewas rarely any room for discussion withadults except on adults terms. Childrenwere often brought together for‘discussions’ but these were generallyopportunities for adults to provideexplanations about religious teachings orprovide spiritual guidance or to reinforcethe importance of complying with the rulesparticularly governing appropriatebehaviour.

It is surprising that in a context wherechildren were clearly deemed to be ableto take on a range of roles andresponsibilities, they were on the other


page

282

hand, not deemed to be able to contributeto any decision about their lives or aboutmatters that affected them. In that sense itwas not just children’s choices that werelimited but children’s right to express theirviews and think through options andsolutions to issues that were clearlyrelevant to their daily lives. This paradox of‘over-responsibilizing’ children while at thesame time denying them the right andopportunity to develop the crucial skillsrequired to make choices and consideroptions in a thoughtful manner reallyhighlights the fact that the majority ofchildcare institutions continue to raisechildren in a manner that may not beconducive to developing their full potentialas active responsible adults and citizens,contributing fully to their communities andsociety.

Supporting Children’s Care andEducation

The conflation between what is goodfor children with whatever the institutioncan provide means that the ‘institution’sbest interest’ comes over time to beunderstood to be also ‘the child’s bestinterest’. This came through particularlystrongly when managers and staff wereasked about the vision and mission of theirinstitutions and the aims of the servicesthey provided to children. In the greatmajority of cases, the institutions clearlyequated the goal of their institution withchildren’s best interests. Whether it wasthe creation of new ‘cadres’ for the religiousorganisation or creating clever children tobenefit their families or their nation,children were seen both as objects and astools to further a higher goal and it was‘children’ collectively rather than theindividual children in their care that wereto serve that vision.

There is no doubt that access toeducation is not only a child’s fundamentalright but is also crucial to their future andthe future of their communities andsocieties. In that sense, it is clear thatchildcare institutions that enable childrento access formal education are working tofulfil an important child right. However thequestion has to be asked whether theapproach taken to fulfilling that right is inthe child’s best interest, i.e did the childneed to be removed from his or her familyand alienated from the fundamentalemotional and social relationships neededfor that girl or boy’s full development inorder to access education. This basic andvital question does not seem to havebeen asked at all in almost any of theinstitutions assessed under this research.Should children and families have tochoose between two equallyfundamental and important rights asthe right to family life and the right toeducation? In that regard this researchhas confirmed David Tolfree’s perceptiveconclusion that, “Most institutions resemble amedical prescription which has been made withouta preceding diagnosis. Many organisations whichprovide institutional care seem to assume that the‘answer’ to the problems of vulnerable children isresidential care, but the ‘question’ is neither posednor explored.”1 This research has seen noevidence that such a choice is eithernecessary, cost effective or beneficial inIndonesian society.

One reason why questions about theefficiency or desirability of the appallingchoice many poor children have to facebetween family life or education have neverbeen asked in Indonesia may be because ofthe cyclical nature of the institutionsresponse –need model. For whateverreason institutions come into existence,once they are established they requirefunding and to access funding they require‘clients’. Institutions can only run if they


page

283

can access considerable funding from thegovernment and from the community. Theycan only do this if they have children intheir care. Once government, donors andcommunities provide support to anestablished institution, they mustcontinue to support it financially if theyare not to lose their original investment.In that sense children becomecommodities in an established cyclicalfunding mechanism that activelydiscourages examination of internaleffectiveness, efficiency or equity ofexternal alternatives and options. It wasa striking finding of this research that manyof the childcare institutions assessed hadbegun as personal initiatives from wellmeaning people concerned about thewelfare of children in their communities.Usually a handful of children were gatheredand cared for in that person’s private home.Then it made sense for the person to seekmore permanent funding to care for thesechildren and soon an institution was born.As this research has shown, very few ofthe children in the institutions assessedwere in fact orphans, parentless orwithout families but no assessment hadever been carried out as to whetherdirect support to these children’sfamilies in the form of scholarships or

financial assistance would secure thechild’s education, without placement inan institution. This is not to say that onlyfinancial considerations prevail in theplacement of the child in the institution toaccess education. It could be that there isno good school in the community wherethe child lives or that religious education isnot available. It could be that there is nopublic transport to the nearest Senior HighSchool which are far fewer in numbers inIndonesia and often only available at thesub-district level which can be aconsiderable distance from the child’shome. It could be that there is a history offamily violence and that being in that familyis actually not in the child’s best interest.But very little practical consideration isgiven to options to resolve these issueswhile the child remains at home. Institutionshave been established and as far as they orother stakeholders are concerned, it ismuch easier to take the child in and to beable to apply for funding so that the childcan go to school. The fact that familiesobviously find it hard to access suchassistance when institutions are able to doso relatively easily raises some realquestions about the effectiveness andappropriateness of the social welfaresystem.

This focus on the needs of theinstitutions rather than the needs of thechildren was found to be all the moreunavoidable as a result of theGovernment’s assistance schemesincluding the BBM subsidy which targetfinancial assistance not to children orto their families but to childcareinstitutions. The fact that this assistanceis provided per child was found in thisresearch to be a real incentive forchildcare institutions to recruit sufficientnumber of children to access themaximum assistance. The reality is thatmany of these individual initiatives were


page

284

developed into full blown institutions notas a result of a proper assessment ofchildren’s situations but as a result of theavailability of funding. In one clear case, aHindu organisation which previouslyprovided direct financial support toimpoverished families in the communityfound that the only funding it could accessfrom the government was through openinga childcare institution and so it did andwent looking for the children. In manycases, Islamic boarding schools in search ofmore diverse funding bases identified thatby establishing a ‘panti’, a child careinstitution in their boarding school theycould access more government funding.Such a situation encourages recruitment bychildcare institutions to get children andkeep them rather than to respond to theneeds of particularly vulnerable families andsupport the crucial role of the family asthe unit with the primary responsibility forthe care and protection of children.Ensuring sufficient numbers of children inthe institution in order to access therequired financial assistance underlines thereality that it is generally the institution’sown needs rather than the children’s needsthat are generally the basis for recruitmentand for placement. Again this is not to saythat childcare institutions are necessarilyin the business of making institutions orthat these are not genuine attempts atproviding assistance to very vulnerablechildren and families which may nototherwise be available to them. Thequestion remains why is it not available tothese children and families directly? And isthis the most appropriate and cost effectiveway of providing support to children?

The general lack of data severelyhampers the ability to understand how thecare situation of children is changing inIndonesia. In relation to their institutional-isation, this is particularly problematic

precisely because it also severely hindersany exploration of the challenges faced byfamilies in caring for their children. It alsomeans that no proper assessment can bemade of whether key Governmentinitiatives to support the poorest and mostvulnerable families are working or not. Inresponse to the 1990’s severe economiccrisis that hit Indonesia, a number ofimportant safety net programmes wereinitiated by the Government to support themost vulnerable families to cope and inparticular to ensure access to health andeducation. These programmes supportedby the World Bank and the AsianDevelopment Bank were generallyrecognised to have had a positive impactat least in terms of limiting the worst impactof that crisis on the capacity of families toafford their children’s education byproviding scholarship schemes and otherfinancial assistance.2 Similarly, thegovernment’s Operational Aid to Schools(Bantuan Operasional Sekolah BOS) initiatedin 2005 aims to guarantee the 9 yearcompulsory schooling policy by subsidisingthe costs of education for families directlythrough the schools as well as through asmaller system of direct scholarships.3 Theextent to which these had or are having animpact on the most vulnerable families’capacity to ensure access to educationwithout having to resort to placing theirchildren in institutional care is really in needof further exploration. If the apparentstrong links between access to educationand placement in institutional care areconfirmed, it would be essential tounderstand why such interventions arefailing to ensure that a significant percentageof families are able to secure education fortheir children. The Government would thenbe in a much better position to ensure thatits social interventions towards the mostvulnerable members of the communitiesare actually appropriately targeted and arein fact working.


page

285

A shift of paradigm

The fact that there is in effect noregulatory system for childcareinstitutions in Indonesia and thatanyone can establish a childcareinstitution is deeply worrying. It meansthat anyone can seek and get fundingto establish such an institution, that noparticular professional competence,skills or suitability to work with childrenare required and that even if aparticular institution is found to beclearly violating children’s rights or isunable to abide by standards of carethere is no legal or policy basis forforcing the organisation to remedy thatsituation or to shut it down. This situationmeans that little if any protection isprovided to children who live in many casesthe greater part of their childhood ininstitutional care and that the governmentis unable to fulfil its ultimate role andresponsibility for the protection of thesechildren. The lack of data available acrossIndonesia about children placed in careand about the institutions themselveswhile at the same time sustainedfunding is being poured intoconsiderable numbers of theseinstitutions, means that the governmentis not in a position to know in anyconcrete way whether the assistance itis providing is having the desired impactor even whether it is going to thechildren that need it the most. Evidencefrom this research pointed in fact to thecounter productive impact of the BBMSubsidy in relation to the Government’sattempts at promoting family based care.The Subsidy is not only encouraging thegrowth in the number of childcareinstitutions across Indonesia, it is promotingthe recruitment of children away from theirfamily and their institutionalisation in orderto access crucial assistance.

This situation also means that theGovernment is not in a position to knowwhether the policies and guidelines it hasdeveloped in relation to the provision ofservices in childcare institutions and outsideof childcare institutions are actually beingimplemented or whether they are relevantand support good care practices. Thisresearch found a serious gap betweenthe legal and policy frameworkdeveloped and updated regularly inJakarta by the central government andthe reality of what is happening on theground. This is very likely to be the casenot just for the 37 childcare institutionssurveyed in this research but also for thethousands of unregulated childcareinstitutions across the country. The researchidentified only tenuous links between thelegal and policy framework developed bythe Government and implementation onthe ground. While the situation was betterin the handful of government institutionswhich had at least in some cases heardabout the Child Protection Law and lessfrequently about the DEPSOS Guidelinesfor childcare institutions, governmentinstitutions only constitute a tinypercentage of the vast numbers of childcareinstitutions operating therefore withoutguidance or standards in Indonesia.

This gap was found not just at the levelof professionalism or capacity to deliverservices but also in terms of the coreunderstanding of what childcare institutionsshould be about and who they should behelping. Most childcare institutionssurveyed were not aware that there wereactually standards and laws that might beapplicable to them and to the provision ofservices for children in need of protection.With some notable exceptions, childcareinstitutions did not view their role andresponsibility in terms of supporting,replacing momentarily or even permanentlythe fundamental role of parents but only


page

286

providing for basic needs such as food,accommodation and education. In someways, it could be said that this is actually inline with the policy framework providedby the Ministry of Social Affairs. As we sawearlier, the guidelines provided are basedon a fairly narrow understanding of the‘parental role’ and focuses on the provisionof mainly residential care to fulfil thematerial needs of a vast group of so called‘neglected children’. Law no 23 on ChildProtection (2002) however, provides a verydifferent framework for the provision ofchild protection services. In particular itrecognises clearly that the fundamentalresponsibility of the government and ofagencies delivering services tovulnerable children should first andforemost be to provide support to thesechildren’s families so that they can fulfiltheir primary responsibility towardsthem. The Government is now facing theimportant challenge of translating that lawinto concrete policies which move awayfrom a model of child protection servicesfocused primarily on the provision ofresidential care. Instead it needs to provideconcrete guidance about what alternativeservices, and what approaches areappropriate to protect children in theirfamilies and communities. In that sense it

needs to oversee an important paradigmshift which was initiated by the ratificationof the UN Convention on the Rights ofthe Child and the adoption of Law No 23on Child Protection but has yet to betranslated into in policies, practice andresource allocation.

A number of key social functions areheavily dependent on a family’s capacity towithstand and recover from a crisiswhether personal, social or environmental.By supporting that basic social unit theGovernment is thus not just ensuring thata group ranging from anything from 2 tosometimes more than 30 people is able tosurvive but that it is able to play its rolefully and not become dependent on others(state or community). The family’s primaryresponsibility for the care and protectionof children, a fundamental social function,can be particularly challenged by a rangeof factors including economic ones. Thevery nature of the family forces it to makecontinual choices between the survival andwell being of its members and investing inits future, its children. As a resultinterventions should aim to strengthen thecapacity of families to play their role fully,including empowering them to play thatdual function fully. Economic stability for afamily means to be able not only to eat butalso to care for its young ones and itselderly, as well as other potentiallyvulnerable members. This means being ableto afford the children’s education, theirclothes, their food, a home base, and beingable to achieve a meaningful social role forthe family members. In a context whereinterventions to support the mostvulnerable families are not accessibledirectly by that family but only through theplacement of their children in a child careinstitution, the crucial double role of thefamily as the fundamental social andeconomic unit can be seriously undermined.Right now government assistance and the


page

287

strong focus on delivering assistancethrough childcare institutions by both faithbased and community based organisationsis highly likely to be undermining thecapacity of families to cope for themselves.

In that regard Indonesia is at a criticalcrossroad. With the adoption of Law No23 on Child Protection it has recognisedthe fundamental responsibility of the Stateto support families as the social unit withprimary responsibility for the care ofchildren. On the other hand, the prevalentparadigm in terms of social welfare and thewelfare of children continues to be basedon a system that inherently undermines therole of families or at best does not supportit. This is the case despite the fact that thevast majority of children in Indonesiawho are without parental care or whoseparents are unable to care for them arebeing cared for by members of theirfamilies including grandparents, auntsand uncles or other relatives. Yet nosupport services are in place to ensurethese families are able to play thatcrucial role in the care and protectionof children. The support system for familybased alternative care needs to be built andthere needs to be a determined shift awayfrom residential care responses. This meansdirect support services to families that areboth financial and psycho-social and this isprobably where community organisationsincluding faith based organisations can bestplay their role as they are able to reachcommunities at the very grassroot levelacross Indonesia. But these organisationsalso need to operate within a legal andpolicy framework set by the Governmentincluding guidance, standards for servicedelivery and monitoring.

In this context it will be crucial thatGovernment programmes aiming toempower families and provideassistance to them and their children

work within a common policyframework and develop a concertedapproach. At the present time, twoseparate Directorates in the Ministry ofSocial Affairs, one for the Empowermentof Families and one for Social Services forChildren are located under two differentDirectorates General and are operatingcompletely separately from one another.The need for both to not only work closelytogether but actually to adopt acomplementary vision and strategy is clearif the goal of supporting families to fullyperform their crucial social role is to beachieved. Another Directorate General inthe Ministry, the Directorate General forSocial Assitance and Social Insurance islooking at economic assistance to the mostvulnerable households. It has recentlyinitated with the World Bank an ambitiousand interesting pilot of conditional cashassistance to vulnerable families, the Hopefor Families Programme (Program KeluargaHarapan- PKH). This represents a goodinitiative that has the potential to really linkfamilies’ capacity to care with their capacityto cope economically but again, theunderstanding of what that ‘care’ rolemeans is narrowly defined to nutrition andchildren being at school. Such supportneeds to be also targeted to families whichface particular challenges in the care of theirchildren, such as single parent households,widows and widowers, householdsproviding kinship care (including thoseheaded by grandparents), and other nonkinship forms of foster families. In additionit needs to be linked to the crucial deliverynot just of economic support but also ofpsycho-social support that targets thefamily’s other key social roles andresponsibilities for the care and protectionof children.

Direct interventions in the communitymust also be provided to ensure familiesare able to appropriately and adequately


page

288

perform their care role. The assumptionsometimes made that if a family is financiallyempowered this will necessarily means thatthey will be able to fulfil their role towardstheir children appropriately is clearly shownto be erroneous by all of the statistics onviolence against children. Poor parenting,violence against children, neglect and theexploitation of children sometimes at thehands of their families all require childprotection services that are able to preventand respond to the child’s situationappropriately and immediately in a way thatis also in his or her best interest and thatdoes not include over-reliance oninappropriate residential care solutions. Tomake residential care really the lastresort requires community level servicesthat are accessible by children, theirfamilies and other responsible membersof the community and that can respondquickly and effectively. Without these, thechild will not only face the risk of seriousharm but the likely response will be toremove that boy or girl and place them ininstitutional care whether moreappropriate solutions are available or not.This will entail not just a shift of thinking,of policy and of law, it will also requirea change in the way social work isdelivered and social services resourced.It will mean the development of aworkforce of social workers that areactively interacting with children andtheir families and handling cases. Thepresent social work system in Indonesia isrelying heavily on civil servants who areprimarily desk based and operating withina bureaucracy rather than practitionersworking in communities. Meanwhile thesocial work carried out on the ground bycommunity and faith based groups remainsgenerally unsupported and unregulated. Ashift towards direct services in thecommunity that are not only remedial butalso preventative will require a serious

investment in human resources and atremendous capacity building exercise aswell as a shift in the way resources andbudgets are allocated.

A shift towards direct services forchildren and families away frominstitutional care will also require analternative care system that issupported and regulated. In order tomake residential care truly a last resort,alternative family based care should beencouraged, supported and provided witha legal and policy framework within whichit can operate truly as the best alternativefor the child. Again this entails recognisingthe enormous role that extended familiesplay in the care of children without parentalcare in Indonesia. Single parents should besupported through legal, economic andsocial measures to empower them andenable them to play fully their role inrelation to their children. Kinship careshould be encouraged and supportedincluding by focusing assistance tovulnerable families that are caring forchildren who are without parental care.Indonesia has no formal fostering systemoutside of kinship care and while thepriority should continue to be onsupporting kinship care, the research alsohighlighted the fact that a small number ofchildren cannot be cared for by theirfamilies. While informal fostering by nonrelatives is widely seen in Indonesiaincluding by neighbours or other individualswho come forward to take responsibilityfor a child, there is no regulatoryframework for such care arrangements andagain no support available for the crucialrole played by these families. Developinga formal fostering system including bynon relatives is essential to thedevelopment of a range of family basedcare options for children withoutparental care and also to ensure that suchplacements really offer the care and


page

289

protection that children are entitled to. Inthat regard, to ensure that formal fosteringdoes not undermine the crucial role kinshipcare plays in Indonesia and to avoid itbecoming a means of securing livelihoodor a business, it will be very important toconsider carefully how such a system canbe effectively regulated as well as supported.

The fact that none of the childcareinstitutions that cared for babies and infantshad considered supporting the placementof these children in an alternative familyenvironment, whether through fostering ormore permanent care options for childrenwho have no family, highlights the fact thatthe provision of family based alternativecare continues to be seen as a last resortrather than a first resort. Despite the factthat the Law on Child Protection providesa strong basis for such alternatives, theresearch found that institutions caring forthe younger children had either notconsidered or dismissed out of hand suchsolutions. This seemed to stem not onlyfrom a lack of understanding of theimportance of a family environment forchildren who are at critical stages of theirdevelopment but also in some cases fromthe reality that the interests of theinstitutions were being put before the bestinterest of the children.

Finally, the findings from this researchhighlight in no uncertain term theurgent need for institutional care to beregulated in Indonesia. This is essential ifthe Government of Indonesia is to fulfil itsresponsibility towards children withoutparental care. The government isresponsible to ensure that the rights ofIndonesian children are fulfilled and it hasa direct responsibility for the hundreds ofthousands of children who are in effect inits care as they are no longer under parentalcare. It must ensure that childcareinstitutions actually do provide care for

children and that the services provided, notonly by government run institutions but alsoby the thousands of privately runinstitutions, abide by clear quality standardswhich are in line with national andinternational standards on child rights andchild protection. A regulatory system isalso essential, if the Government is toensure that children only enter institutionalcare when it is clearly in their best interestand not because it is in the interest of theinstitutions themselves. The importantsocial role played by community and faithbased organisations in Indonesia representsan exceptional opportunity to harness suchdeeply rooted commitment and sense ofsocial responsibility together with asignificant capacity to act, to secure the careand protection of those that most need itincluding children in need of protection.But it does not relieve the government ofits ultimate responsibility in ensuring thatchildren’s rights are fulfilled and that theresponse to their protection needs areappropriate and effective. A licensingsystem for institutions aiming to care forchildren must be put in place to ensure thatthose that aim to provide such services arecompetent to do so but also to make surethat whatever service they deliver areprofessional and abide by some clearstandards of care. It will also ensure thatthe situation of children in care and ofchildcare institutions is finally known andthat appropriate data can be collected andused to ensure that responses andinterventions towards children in care areeffective and appropriate. In the same waythat there are regulations for servicesprovided under the education system andthe health system, regulations for the caresystem must be in place and a oversightbody put in place not only to inspect andmonitor the services provided by childcareinstitutions but also to identify the needs


page

290

for support, training, capacity building aswell as financial assistance.

This regulatory system will play acrucial role not only in ensuring thatservices provided in childcare institutionsabide by some fundamental standards, butalso in ensuring that an appropriate legalbasis is provided for the delivery of theservices as well as for the placement of thechildren in care. The development of aregulatory system for alternative careincluding residential care provides in itselfan enormous opportunity for Indonesia toreview not just how alternative care is bestdelivered for children but also how the childprotection system should operate.

Moving away from entrenched andoverwhelming reliance on residentialcare in Indonesia is not just aboutaddressing the needs of a particulargroup of children, such as ‘neglectedchildren’. Instead, it is about respondingto the needs of all children who, forwhatever reasons, are in need of careand protection. It is about establishinga child protection system that canactually respond to their situation andthat does not see placing a child in an

institution as the solution to anundiagnosed problem and certainly notas the only, or even best, response butonly as one of many possibleinterventions, one to be resorted to whenno better options are truly available. This isessential not only for ‘neglected’ childrenbut for all other groups of children for whoresidential care remains the primary formof intervention in Indonesia. This includesdisabled children, so called ‘naughty’children, trafficked children, abused children,children in conflict with the law, streetchildren, children suffering from substanceabuse, child domestic workers, childreninvolved in prostitution or children who areseparated from their families or whosefamilies are facing an immediate crisis as aresult of natural or social disaster. Thisconstitutes the biggest challenge to theestablishment of an effective andappropriate child protection system inIndonesia and a social work system thattruly respond to children’s rights and bestinterests.


page

291

LIFE STORY:

YUDHA (Boy, 20 years old), WEST KALIMANTAN

A. Particulars

Name: Yudha

Place and Date of Birth: Landak District,15 September 1987

Ethnic Group: Dayak Belangin

Religion: Protestant

Length of time in institution: 7 years

B. Family Background

Yudha is the youngest of seven children,and he has three brothers and three sisters.They are all Dayak Belangin. Of the sevensiblings, 3 are Catholic and 4 are Protestant,including Yudha.

Yudha’s father worked in the fields, andhis mother helped. Their fields were deep inthe forest, so that his parents frequently usedto overnight there. The area of forest thatbelongs to Yudha’s parents is not big, and theypracticed shifting cultivation. Besides workingon the land, Yudha’s father was also known asa shaman, and knew how to treat the sick.Yudha says he used to like to see peoplecoming to his father for treatment.

Yudha says that his parents were poor.This is because they were not able to fullyeducate his brothers and sisters. One of hissiblings graduated from high school, but hiseducation was not fully paid for by his parents.Instead, he had to work at the same time.Meanwhile, Yudha’s other siblings nevergraduated from elementary school, some gotas far as grade 4, some grade 6.

Yudha’s sibling who graduated from highschool now works and lives in the city, andrarely returns home to the village. His other

brothers and sisters are married and live inother villages. Only Yudha still lived with hisparents.

C. Life before the Institution

1. Living in the ForestWhen he was small, Yudha spent a lot of

time with his parents at their fields in the forest.He still remembers living in the forest with hisparents, watching over their fields, while hisbrothers and sisters stayed in the village. Heliked playing in the fields, running around, whilehelping root out the weeds from among hisparents’ rice plants. He spent approximately3 years living in the forest at the family fields.

2. Mother Passes AwayOne day when Yudha was five, he left the

forest and returned to the village. He stayedthere for one week. On the way back to thefamily fields in the forest, his mother took illwith a fever. By the time they had reached thefields in the evening, his mother was stillfeverish. After three days, she had notrecovered. Yudha’s father then resolved to takeher and Yudha back to the village. She still hadnot recovered by the time they arrived there.

Yudha says that his mother’s illness was“strange”. The fever would not break andsuppurating red boils appeared on her body.At home, Yudha’s mother was treated by hisfather, who was known as a shaman. “My dad isa shaman, so he treated mum himself,” explainedYudha, who spoke haltingly as he tried to holdthe grief in. His mother died at twelve noonafter ritual offerings had earlier been made aspart of the treatment regime. “When Mum died,I didn’t know. I was sleeping beside her. Then Iheard my brother crying. So I started crying too.But I didn’t understand at the time that mum had


page

292

passed away”. When his mother died, Yudhawas 5, and his mother was 59.

After Yudha’s mother died, his fatherbecame sickly and he did not return to thefields. He stayed at home with Yudha. BothYudha and his father now had to be supportedby Yudha’s siblings, even though none of themhad regular jobs. Yudha’s father wouldsometimes do a little work in the rubberplantations, while the family fields in the forestwere worked by Yudha’s siblings.

3. Starting at Elementary SchoolIn 1994, Yudha started at elementary

school at the age of 7. His father was at hiswits’ end as he could not afford to pay theschool fees and buy Yudha’s uniform. “Seven daysafter mum died, dad told my brothers and sistersthat as he was old and sick, they were going tohave to look after me from then on.” But Yudha’ssiblings were also in precarious financial straitsthemselves so that they were only able to helpout with food. As for Yudha’s school expenses,there was nothing they could do to help. Inthe end, Yudha had to go to school shoelessand without a uniform.

“My older brother in the city promised thathe would buy me shoes. I waited and waited, butthey never came. But I still had to go the school.”At the time, Yudha did not know whether hisschool fees were being paid or not. All hethought about was how to keep going toschool. “At the time, I wasn’t embarrassed as lotsof my friends didn’t have uniforms either, and wentto school in sandals,” he replied when asked howhe felt about having to go to school without auniform.

Yudha’s school was located about 3kilometres from his house. He walked to schoolwith his friends along the edge of the fields.The road was very bad. During the dry season,it was very dusty while during the wet seasonit became muddy and slippery. However, thiswas not enough to prevent Yudha from goingto school, even though he did not have anyshoes. In fact, during the wet season, even thoseof his friends that had shoes would take themoff and carry them in their hands.

When Yudha was in grade 3 in elementaryschool, he finally got a pair of shoes. His brotherhad bought them as a reward for his goodgrades at school. He had promised to buy theshoes when Yudha started at school, but neverdid so. Then he promised to do so again ifYudha progressed to the next grade and cameto the top three in his class but his elder siblingnever showed up. Yudha gave the followingreason for this: “My brother lives far away and itcosts a lot to get there. So, he has to keep workingall the time. I feel sorry for him.”

The new shoes also did not appear whenYudha moved up to grade 2. It was only duringthe second quarter of grade 3 that the shoesfinally arrived. However, “the shoes were too small,but I kept wearing them anyway. There werealready holes in them after two months,” Yudharecalled, while nodding his head sadly.

Yudha was at home one day and there wasabsolutely nothing to eat in the house. Hewas in grade 5 at elementary school at thetime. Yudha was desperate. Then, one of hiselder siblings arrived with rice, saving Yudhafrom starvation. “I really remember that day as Isaw that dad hadn’t cooked anything. He just satthere dreaming, like he was in a daze.” Becausethe family fields were not being looked afterproperly, they did not produce enough rice tofeed the family. So, when the rice they hadgrown ran out, they had to buy more.

When in grade 6 of elementary school, itwas time for Yudha to sit his final examinations.The exams were held in the city as the schoolthat Yudha attended did not provide for this.So, Yudha went off to the city, along with hisclassmates and teacher. Besides him, a total of6 students from his class sat the exams.

The examination fee was Rp 50,000, whichwas paid for jointly by Yudha’s siblings. Besidesthe examination fee, Yudha also brought Rp30,000 with him as he would have to stayovernight. Yudha, his classmates and the teacherslept in the school where the examination wasto be held. “I was embarrassed to ask my eldersibling for any more help.” In Yudha’s village, quitea lot of unofficial gold mining was carried on


page

293

by local people. Yudha also looked for gold inthe nearby river with people from theneighbouring village after he returned homefrom school. He didn’t feel that he had to dothis. Rather he felt sorry for his siblings andembarrassed as he always had to ask them forassistance, even though they were his ownbrothers and sisters.

He would normally make around Rp 2,000per day from the gold he found in the river –“enough to buy rice, enough to feed myself anddad.” Yudha was thankful even though he didn’tmake much money from the gold panning.

If he was not looking for gold, Yudha wouldcollect vegetables from the forest and sell themto the neighbours. This would earn himbetween Rp 200 and Rp 500 per day, which hewould spend on groceries or snacks.

4. Going to the institutionAfter his elementary school examinations,

Yudha’s second eldest brother, who lived inanother village, came to Yudha’s house and said,“Would you like to continue on at school? If youwould, I can bring you to the Children’s Home inTebas”. Yudha was overjoyed at the suggestionas he really wanted to continue on at school.“I wanted to go to school in the city, like my brotherand then find a job in the city.” At the time, Yudhadidn’t know that it was a childcare institution.

Yudha’s brother had heard about theinstitution from a Pengembala (clergyman) whoused to visit his village doing missionary work.The clergyman told him about the Tebaschildcare institution which took in indigentchildren. He immediately thought of his brotherYudha and went back to the village to tell himabout it.

After Yudha heard from his brother aboutthe institution, he waited impatiently for himto take him there. “I waited for my brother forone week, but he didn’t come. I went nowhere asI was afraid that he would come to take me thereand I would miss him”. After a week waiting forhis brother, Yudha decided that he wasn’tcoming and that it was safe to go outside again.So, one day he went with some friends to theriver to fish. They caught a lot of fish that day.

But, while they were fishing, someone cameand told Yudha that his brother had arrived. “Iwas really happy. I didn’t even take time to eat thefish I’d caught, I just wanted to go as quickly aspossible.” Yudha then walked to his brother’shouse, which was some 4 kilometres away fromhis father’s house. “At the time, I really felt sorryfor dad, as I’d left him behind. There was no one tolook after him. I cried, but I really wanted to go toschool. I told dad that I wanted to become a servantof God, but would come home to visit him.” Yudha’sfather also cried as Yudha took his leave.

Before travelling to the Tebas childcareinstitution, Yudha stayed at his brother’s house.After a week there, he was getting restless ashis brother was showing no sign of taking himto Tebas. Instead, he kept saying they wouldhave to wait until he had enough money. Yudhabecame desperate to get to the institution asschool had already started. “I was really upsetand asked to be allowed to go back home to dad.”

The following day, his brother foundenough money and invited Yudha to come withhim to the institution. They set off early in themorning and finally arrived at Tebas at 6 p.m.The journey from Yudha’s village to Tebas toapproximately 8 hours and cost around Rp100,000. (USD 10)

D. Life in the Institution

1. At the startWhen they arrived at the institution, Yudha

and his brother were welcomed by the womanwho heads the institution, Mrs N. “When I mether, she asked me, ‘Do you want to go to school?”I answered “Yes, Mam”’. ‘Do you have anyparents?’ ‘Just my dad’.” This conversation withthe head of the Children’s Home, took place5 years ago and is still remembered by Yudha.

After one day in the institution, Yudha wasenrolled in junior high school. In reality,enrolment was already over for that year asschool had already started. Yudha was worriedthat he would not in the end be accepted. Thenext day, he met Mrs N. who said “You just stayhere and work in my place. I’ll give you what I can,


page

294

OK?” This was how Yudha was invited to liveand work in the head of the institution’s house.

Yudha’s enrolment in junior high schoolwent smoothly as Mrs N. had a friend workingthere and many of the children from theChildren’s Home also went to school there.The enrolment fee was Rp 200,000 (USD 20).“Everything was paid by Mrs N. I was also given auniform, bag and books.”

Since then, Yudha has been in the care ofthe childcare institution and living in Mrs N.’shouse. His daily activities there, besides goingto school and participating in the activitiesorganized by the childcare institution, consistof keeping Mrs N’s yard clean.

“At the start in the institution I cried a lotthinking about my dad and brother. My broughtme here. The next day when I returned homefrom school, he had gone. He didn’t even saygoodbye to me.” According to Mrs N., “Whenhe first arrived at the institution, I told him tostay with me in my house. I told him to help mearound the house. I felt so sorry for him, he wasso small and thin. He would often feel down orcry to himself. So, I would rub his head and tellhim to treat myself and my husband as his owndad and mum.”

With the passage of time, and kept busywith his school work and the activities in thechildcare institution, Yudha came to adapt. Heno longer cried, and began to make new friends.

2. Sad to hear of dad’s deathYudha did not return home for a year and

a half after he came to live at the Tebas childcareinstitution. One Christmas, he wanted to gohome but he did not have enough money, andthere were also lots of things going on in thechildcare institution. Then, a preacherinformed Yudha that his father had passed away.“I was really sad. Why hadn’t my brother told me?I wanted to go home, but I didn’t have any money.”He continued, “When mum died, I was still smalland I was sleeping beside her. When dad died, noone told me. I didn’t even know he was sick anddying. I cried non-stop for a week.” When askedwhat was it that most grieved him about his

father’s death, Yudha replied, “I have no parentsleft, other people still have their mums and dads.”

Mrs N. recalled that Yudha’s grief over hisfather’s death lasted for a relatively long time.“He was always crying and withdrawn.” But timeheals everything, and Yudha eventually stoppedcrying. Mrs N. and Yudha’s friends did theirutmost to take him out of himself, especiallyhis friend called Morry. Now, Morry is his bestfriend.

3. Working with Mr P.’s familyAs Yudha became a teenager, his needs

increased, while the services provided by thechildcare institution remained relativelyconstant. Among his needs was additionalmoney for snacks, transport and education.

The distance between Yudha’s school andthe childcare institution was approximately 5km. He cycled every day on a bicycle providedby the childcare institution as far as the highway,from where he would catch a minibus to bringhim the rest of the way. The minibus fare wasRp 1,000 each way, meaning that he neededRp 2,000 per day. However, this money wasnot provided by the childcare institution.Similarly, the childcare institution did not payfor the maintenance of the bicycle, such asrepairing punctures. This was the responsibilityof Yudha.

Yudha attended school from 1 p.m. until 5p.m. During break time, he would needsomething to eat. This was also not providedby the childcare institution.

In order to cover these additionalexpenses, Yudha worked in the house of a mannamed Mr P. Yudha’s main job was looking afterMr P’s citrus grove, and he worked theretogether with his friend, Morry. Yudha’s maintasks in the citrus grove were:

a. clearing away grassb. sprayingc. picking the fruit at harvest time.

He worked for Mr P. three times per week,on Monday, Wednesday and Friday. However,even then, it all depended on what was goingon at the childcare institution: “Nothing wasdefinite, it all depended. It could be any day. If I


page

295

wasn’t scheduled for duties in the childcareinstitution, then I could go out to work.” NormallyYudha worked from 6 a.m. (sometime 7 a.m.)until 9 or 10 a.m.

Besides maintaining the citrus grove, Yudhaalso looked after Mr P’s house whenever hewas away. As Mr P was a Dayak communityleader, he was often called away. When lookingafter Mr P’s house, Yudha’s duties were asfollows:

Cleaning up around the house

a. Hosing down Mr P’s two pigsb. feeding the chickens and ducksc. cleaning out the pig sty and chicken

coops.

The amount of money received by Yudhain return for his work was not fixed. “It alldepended, it could be Rp 15,000, Rp 20,000(USD1.5 - 2), it wasn’t fixed.” Not only was theamount of money received not fixed, neitherwas the amount of time worked. “Yeah, it wasn’tfixed. If I needed something, I could ask for 3 dayswork. If I didn’t need something, I might only workonce in the week.” If he needed somethingurgently, then he would normally be paid more:“I once said I needed to make photocopiesand was given Rp 30,000 (USD 3).”

Besides working for Mr P, Yudha was alsofrequently given chores by Mr P’s wife. “If Iwas asked to do something for Mrs P, she’d giveme Rp 5,000 – straight away after I did the job.”Normally, Mrs P would ask Yudha to clean outthe animal pens. This work was incidental innature, and would arise when they had no timeto clean the pens themselves.

Yudha would try to do some work in MrP’s citrus grove every week. If he didn’t work,then he would find it difficult to ask for money.

If Yudha didn’t work during a particularweek, he would not be brave enough to go toMr P’s house. It had happened in the past thathe didn’t work for a full week. When askedwhy he did not work, he said he “couldn’t bebothered.” As a result of not working, he hadno money for his minibus fare. In order tomake up the shortfall, he borrowed money

from a staff member. “I borrowed Rp 10,000from A,” he responded when asked where hegot the money for his minibus fare.

Besides borrowing from A, Yudha said healso frequently asks Morry to buy snacks forhim. “Morry is more economical and doesn’t eatso many snacks,” Yudha said when asked whyMorry had money but Yudha didn’t, even thoughboth of them worked for Mr P. “If I buysomething, I buy a drink and a snack, sometimesbread, but Morry doesn’t.”

Yudha regards Morry as his best friend.So, when it is time for them to perform choresin the childcare institution, he asks the childcareworker to roster him at the same time asMorry.

4. Going HomeIn 2004, after sitting the junior high school

examination, Yudha returned to his homevillage. He had asked permission from Mrs Nbeforehand, and permission had been granted.She paid for his trip home: “Mrs N gave Rp100,000 for the fare home (USD 10).” Yudhawas ecstatic at the prospect of returning homeand being reunited with his family. Three yearsafter Yudha had left home, his father had died,so that they had never met again after Yudhaleft for Tebas. At home, Yudha only met withhis elder brother who had originally broughthim to the childcare institution. He did notmeet with his other brothers and sisters.

He was very sad that his father was nolonger alive. He did not visit his father’s grave,but rather spent all of his time at his elderbrother’s house. “I didn’t want to go home as itwould only have upset me by reminding me ofdad,” he said. None of Yudha’s brothers andsisters came specially to meet him.

After a week at his brother’s house, Yudhareturned to Tebas. His brother gave him Rp100,000 for the fare. Yudha wanted to get backto the childcare institution as quickly aspossible as he was afraid he would be lateregistering for school. In addition, as theexamination results had not yet beenannounced, he was afraid there might be otherthings he would have to take care of.


page

296

Furthermore, Mrs N had warned him not tospend too long at home. “Don’t spend too longin your village, OK? You haven’t got your examresults yet and you have to register for schoolagain,”

5. Failing the Final ExaminationYudha sat the UAN (Final National

Examinations) in grade 3 of junior high school.Of the 7 students that took the examination,2 failed. One of them was Yudha, who failedmathematics. When asked why he had failedmaths, he replied, “Maths is difficult. I didn’t likestudying maths.” He added that the mathsteacher frequently failed to show up for class.Yudha also admitted he was a reluctant mathsstudent as there was no one in the childcareinstitution whom he could turn to for help,save for the other children, who also didn’tunderstand maths. “It was not big deal… it’s reallydifficult. Mrs N understands,” he replied, whenasked how he felt about not passing the UAN.

As he had not passed the first time around,Yudha repeated the UAN maths examinationthe next time around.

6. Enrolling in SMEA (Economics HighSchool)

Before he knew whether he had passedthe repeat maths examination or not, Yudhaenrolled in the Economics High School (SMEA).SMEA was in reality not his first choice.However, the staff at the institution had urgedhim to enrol in SMEA as it offered betteremployment prospects. So, Yudha agreed andfollowed his friends who had already enrolledthere. “My friends told me that if I wanted to geta job quickly, SMEA was the place to go. Also, lotsof my friends from the childcare institution hadenrolled in SMEA, so I did the same.” Anotherreason Yudha enrolled in this SMEA was that itwas close to Tebas. In reality, Yudha wished toenrol in a Technical High School (STM), butthe nearest STM was in Singkawang.

Enrolment in SMEA cost Rp 200,000 (USD20), which was paid in full by the childcareinstitution. During his time in SMEA, Yudha washeld back one year.

7. Moving to Technical High School (STM)

Yudha was not happy at SMEA. “It didn’tsuit me, I was bored. It’s also difficult to get jobs,”Yudha said, explaining why he didn’t stay on atSMEA. He decided to transfer to the TechnicalSchool which he had been interested in rightfrom the time he graduated from junior highschool. When asked why he wanted to go toSTM, he replied, “I want to be independent. I wantto know all about engines so that I can get workquickly. There’s lots of garages. Who knows, maybeone day I’ll have my own workshop.” In addition,an STM had already opened in Beikut, whichwas close to where Yudha used to go to juniorhigh school. He would be able to get to thenew school on his bike as far as Tebas, andwalk from there.

The school transfer went relativelysmoothly, with Yudha organizing it himself. Hegot his junior high school certificate (STTB)from the SMEA and then enrolled in the STMin Bekut. In deciding to move schools, Yudhawas acting with the support of the childcareinstitution, which paid the Rp 200,000 (USD20) fee required for the transfer.

Since July 2005, Yudha has been enrolledas a student of the STM.

8. Leaving the Childcare institution for atime

In June 2006, Yudha decided he would leavethe childcare institution. “I wanted to be freeand to work,” he explained. When he left thechildcare institution, he worked in a citrusplantation owned by the Chinese. He also livedon the plantation. He was paid Rp 50,000 (USD5) per week. “If you worked hard, you could earnmore as it depended on how many trees .”Describing his work, he said, “I worked from 7to 9 a.m., or 2 to 4 p.m. on a Sunday as I would beat church in the morning. I learned how to drive atractor when I was there.”

After leaving the childcare institution, heteamed up with some women who alsoworked in the plantation. They all lived in ashed that was specially provided foraccommodating the workers. This shed waslocated within the plantation. Although Yudhahad left the childcare institution by this stage,he still went back to the church there as the


page

297

Description

Held in the auditorium,attended by all the children

If not working in the plantation,then on cooking duty twice perweek

School over at 17:00, 30minutes walking

Held in the auditorium,attended by all the children

After reflection, all the childrenstudy together in the sameroom

Time

04:00

04:30-04:45

04:45-06:00

06:00-09:00

09:00-12:00

12:00-17:30

17:30-18:00

18:00-21:00

21:00-22:00

Activity

Wake up

Morning prayers

Bathing, breakfast

Work in the citrus plantation

Getting ready for school,preparing books, break nadchatting with friends

School

Evening meal, eveningreflection

Study

Back to room, chatting withfriends, sleep

plantation was not too far removed from thechildcare institution.

During his time away from the childcareinstitution, Yudha did not attend school. Whenasked whether it was freedom that he had beenseeking, he replied, “No, as I had to work.” As aresult, he was willing to return to the childcareinstitution when Mrs N came to pick him up.His main motivation in returning, however, wasthat he wanted to continue at school. Nowhe’s back at school and is very happy as theschool is arranging to get all of the studentsdriver’s licenses.

9. Children’s Activities in the childcareinstitution

Yudha was on the chores roster in themorning twice per week. The chores he wasrequired to do were as follows:

a. Prepare afternoon meal. The childrenwere required to boil water, and cookrice, vegetables and side dishes.

b. Clean the auditorium (That alsoserves as a dining room)

c. Clean the kitchen.

Yudha is quite an expert at cooking andalways seems to know what he is doing. Whenhe is doing the morning chores, he cooks inthe kitchen from 7 to 9 a.m. His co-workeron morning chores is Morry. When on duty,they boil water, cook rice and kangkung, andfry fish. Even though Yudha is a boy, he is a realexpert at frying. The fish that he fries is alwaysdelicious, and never burned, even though hefries it on a big fire fed by wood.

When cleaning the kitchen, Yudha doesn’tmind sweeping the floor even though it is madeof crumbling old concrete blocks.


page

298Footnotes:1 D. Tolfree, 1995, Roofs and Roots: The care of separated children in the developing world. Save the Children2 For background and an analysis of the impact of these social protection schemes see: Social Safety Nets: protection

the Poor from Economic Crisis. Lessons Learnt from Indonesia. 1998-2003 (2004) RI, ADB, British Council. Seealso: Steven Baines: Towards more Transparent Financial Management: Scholarship and Grants Programmes inIndonesia (2005). International Institute for Educational Planning. UNESCO

3 For a review of BOS see SMERU: A Rapid Appraisal of the PKPS-BBM Education Sector: School OperationalAssistance (BOS) The Smeru Research Institute (2006)

4 The recently amended Government Regulation on Adoption in that regard is good news in that it has removed theage limit whereby only children under a certain age could be adopted. On the other hand it has multiplied the criteriain term who is able to adopt and retained the requirement that couples planning to adopt must be childless or onlyhave one child. On the other hand it actually provides little regulatory or support system for children who have beenadopted and their families. It also leaves adoption under customary law entirely unregulated. (Government RegulationNo 54 (2007) on the Adoption of Children.)

Besides doing his roster duties in thekitchen, once a week Yudha goes off to collectfirewood. When the assessor was in thekitchen at 7:30 a.m. on Friday, 6 October 2006,Yudha arrived back clutching a big load offirewood to his chest. He had been out lookingfor firewood in the forest around the childcareinstitution from 6 a.m. The length of time Yudhawould spend collecting firewood varied, buthe always made sure to go out collecting itonce per week.

E. Yudha’s Hopes

Yudha hopes that everyone will pray forhim as he wants to become a servant of God.

In addition, he wants to become a livestocktrader.

F. Other people’s comments about Yudha

Mrs N: Yudha gives up easily, and is alwayschanging his stance, never the same. Healso keeps his problems bottled up insidehim. He doesn’t tell anyone else. So, he’soften to be found moping and crying tohimself. He likes to help others, he likesto give. He has money because he works.

E (a child in the institution): Shy, quick tosmile, doesn’t say much.

Morry (his friend): Good fun, likes to help,doesn’t get angry easily.

“Someone That Matters” | XVI Recommendations & References

page

299

XVI. Recommendations

Overall

1) Indonesia has clearly recognised that children have the right to know and grow upwithin their families and that being cared for by a family is the most effective andhealthiest development model for all children. The Government must now develop aclear policy framework that strengthens family based care for vulnerable children andprioritise alternative care in the extended family or in an alternative family for childrenin need of care and protection. Poverty should not be a reason to break up familiesand residential care should ALWAYS be the last resort for children.


page

300

2) Children also have the right to education and they should not have to choose betweenfamily and education. There is an urgent need to understand why so many poor andvulnerable children are not able to access quality education except through placementin institutional care. The Government’s Operational Assistance to Schools Program(BOS) needs to be assessed and reviewed to establish why it is failing to reach certainchildren, those who are most in need of its assistance. The Ministry of Social Affairs,the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Religious Affairs and other key agenciesneed to work together to identify better ways to ensure that poor and vulnerablefamilies can access financial and other forms of support to guarantee their children’seducation.

3) Direct services to support families who are facing challenges in the care of theirchildren should be developed and piloted. These services should include both financialand psycho-social interventions and should be provided by the Government inpartnership with community and faith based organisations that are crucial to socialwelfare service delivery in Indonesia.

4) The provision of a system of alternative care prioritising family based care for childrenwithout parental care including through kinship care, fostering, guardianship and otherforms of family based care should be supported and a clear legal and policy frameworkshould be developed to strengthen the delivery of these forms of alternative care andencourage and support families to care for children without parental care.

5) Discussions should be held with faith based and community organisations, includingthose that run childcare institutions, on how best to support children in their familiesand communities. The commitment given by these organisations in relation to thecare of the most vulnerable members of their communities, including children, shouldbe recognised and government should explore with them possible alternativeinterventions to residential care services and to ensure that it is able to supportthem effectively in their crucial role as service delivers.

6) A clear regulatory framework for childcare institutions must be established whichprovides clear standards in relation to the establishment of childcare institutions, thequality of services that must be provided, operational requirements including a licensingsystem which is based on monitored compliance with set standards. The Ministry ofSocial Affairs as the primary Government agency needs to develop such a system andwork with local government agencies to ensure its implementation across Indonesia.In light of the government’s clear commitment to children’s rights and internationalstandards of best practice as well as Indonesia’s traditional emphasis on family care,evidencing a clear commitment to maintaining and strengthening family contact shouldbe a precondition for registration of any child care institution.

7) An effective system of data collection on children in alternative care should beestablished providing accurate and updated information about the situation of childrenin alternative care including children in institutional care as well as data on bothgovernment and private childcare institutions and other social and justice institutionswhere children reside.


page

301

8) An independent and professional oversight body (inspectorate) must be establishedto oversee the proper application and implementation of standards of care in childcareinstitutions in Indonesia and support the implementation of the licensing system.

9) A review of government assistance schemes to the childcare institutions should beundertaken in particular the BBM subsidy system and financial assistance to institutionsshould be provided in the context of the regulatory system to institutions which areshown to abide by standards of care for children.

10) Specific support to families who are facing particular challenges in the care of theirchildren in particular single parent families, widow and widower, extended familiesthat have taken on the care of children without parental care and foster familiesshould be identified and piloted in the context of the provision of social protection.

11) Discussions should be undertaken between the Ministry of Social Affairs, the Ministryof Religious Affairs and the Ministry of Education as well as key associations andorganisations of pesantren and pesantren leaders to discuss the situation andimplications of Islamic Boarding Schools increasingly merging or opening childcareinstitutions.

12) Research should be undertaken to understand the outcomes for children who haveleft care to look in particular at positive and negative impacts of their experience anddevelop support services for children who are leaving care to facilitate their successfultransition out of care and into the community.

Specific

1) A review should be undertaken by the provincial and district offices of Social Affairswith the support of the Ministry of Social Affairs of the purpose and length of placementsof children in institutional care. Children who are in the institutions for the solepurpose of accessing education and who could be assisted through their familiesshould be provided direct assistance to cover the cost of education. Assistance providedunder the Deconcentration Fund and under the BBM subsidy should be redirected tosupport particularly vulnerable children directly rather than through institutions.Childcare institutions should not be allowed to operate as dormitory or hostels forchildren who can be cared for by their families or in a family like environment.

2) Childcare institutions should be supported to review the basis and process uponwhich they recruit children or admit children into institutional care. It should neverbe about finding children to fill vacancies but about finding the best option for childrenin every individual case. The National Standards of Care for institutions caring forchildren to be developed by the Ministry of Social Affairs should include clear guidelinesand procedures to ensure that residential care is used strictly as a last resort and forthe small number of cases where no family based alternative is available, possible or inthe best interest of that particular child. These should include in particular the followingaspects:


page

302

1. An initial assessment process supervised by the local office of Social Affairs thatincludes a social inquiry report detailing the reasons, purpose and length of theplacement in each case before a child is admitted to a childcare institution. Thelocal office of Social Affairs should ensure that it holds individual records of eachassessment made and of interventions recommended including assistance to thefamily or placement in institutional care. Data should be collected on every childthat enters institutional care and the information compiled and updated regularlyto ensure that the situation of children who are in care at any time can be assessedand reviewed.

2. Clear criteria should be set to ensure a screening process that is based on a realassessment of the capacity of the child’s family, including the extended family tocare and that prioritises providing support to the child within a family contextrather than placement in institutional care.

3. A review of the child’s history including a possible history of violence, loss, neglect,should be undertaken and form part of the assessment in order to determine theparticular needs for support the child may have and whether placement in aparticular institution would respond to those needs or whether other anotherintervention is needed.

4. The assessment and review of the need for placement should form a key part ofthe services provided by the institution and ongoing throughout the placement.Placement should not be permanent until end of high school but temporary untila more suitable and permanent care arrangement can be made.

5. The purpose, scope and length of the placement should be discussed fully withthe child as well as his or her family before a decision of placement is made. Awritten record should be made of the agreement in relation to a particularplacement and be signed by all parties including the child. This agreement shouldclarify the obligations of the childcare institution towards the child and theobligations of the parents or legal guardian. A care plan should be developed atthe outset for each child and be reviewed regularly to determine whether theservices provided are relevant and appropriate or whether the situation of thechild has changed and new provisions need to be put in place.

6. Bearing in mind the well documented negative impact of institutionalisation onchildren who are at the critical stages of development, institutionalisation shouldnever be an option for babies and young children unless it is absolutelydemonstrated in the best interest of that particular child and supervision isprovided by the local office of Social Affairs. In those rare cases, care should beprovided within a small family group home. Institutional care as a rule should notbe considered for children under 10 years of age (elementary school level 4).

7. Family contact and involvement should always be seen as an essential need forchildren and supported systematically including financially. Rather than seen as a‘problem’, it should be seen as essential to children’s development as well as their


page

303

eventual successful reintegration in their communities. Going home at regulartimes and for decent period of times should be made a requirement and financialas well as staff support provided to enable children to do so. Childcare institutionsshould become places that work towards the strengthening of family relationshipsrather than undermining them and should make every effort to ensure childrenare able to go home and maintain contact with their families as regularly aspossible. Parents, siblings and families should also be encouraged and, if needed,actually supported to visit and to share in the life of their children in the institutions.Regular and positive contact should be evidence of a successful childcare institutionrather than seen as undermining the objective of the institution.

8. Staff should be recruited to ensure appropriate child/staff ratio and children’swork or an informal care system should never be used to justify not havingenough staff. Care staff should also be recruited on the basis of having demonstratedexperience and skills in caring for children and not on the basis of other criteriasuch as experience of teaching whether formal or religious. All staff should betrained in childcare principles including positive discipline. Sufficient support staffshould be provided in each institution to ensure that children do not have towork for the institution to run. Children’s life skills are to be built as part of theservices provided by the institution not as a result of lack of staff

9. Rules and regulations for the institution should be discussed and reviewed regularlywith the children and amended as necessary to ensure clear understanding abouttheir purpose and to negotiate appropriately with the children what are appropriateboundaries of behaviour. The use of violence or humiliating, degrading treatmentshould never be allowed but a culture of respect and non violence should besupported.

10. Children should be encouraged to develop meaningful and respectful relationshipwith one another. While understandable that sexual relationships within theinstitution are not desirable this should not be all about punishment and excludingchildren from institutions, but should be about supporting them to understandwhat is appropriate for their age and why in line with their age and developingcapacity. In thatregard knowledgeof children’s deve-lopment and theimportance thatpeer relations playin their lives shouldbe integrated intothe care approachtaken by theinstitutions.


page

304

11. Physical and psychological punishment should be totally prohibited in line withthe Government of Indonesia’s crucial commitment to eliminate violence againstchildren as a response to UN Study on Violence against Children and under LawNo 23 on Child Protection. Staff and teachers should be trained in positive methodsof control and discipline. Children should never be asked to report on or punishother children.

12. A child protection policy and a prevention and reporting system should be inplace in each institution including clear accountability for violations and a supportsystem in place for children to report safely and confidentially potential violationsincluding to the Office of Social Affairs. A mechanism for receiving and consideringeffectively complaints by children who are in institutional care, in a way thatensures children’s safety at all time should be put in place by the Office of SocialAffairs at both District and Provincial levels with support from the Ministry ofSocial Affairs. A referral mechanism to the appropriate agencies responsible foraddressing cases of violence against children should be established to ensureappropriate and systematic responses are provided to such cases.

13. Each institution should have a clear written code of conduct for its staff includingdisciplinary action for breaches and a mechanism for referral of violations thatmay amount to a criminal offence or breach of the law to the appropriate agencies.

14. Children’s views and involvement in every day decisions should be seen as crucialto the care they receive while in placement. It is not only a right for each child toparticipate in decisions that affect him or her in line with their evolving capacity,involving children in decision- making is also one of the most effective way ofteaching life skills. Learning to consider options and to participate in decisions inthat context is crucial to children’s development, and their ability to becomeresponsible, independent and resourceful individuals.

15. Space, both physical and social, should be made available for children so they canidentify issues that are important tothem and regularly discuss amongthemselves as well as with theircarers the challenges they face andconcerns they have as well aspossible solutions to those.Children’s agency should be seen asa mark of a successful care programrather than as a potential threat todiscipline and order in theinstitutions. Enabling children todiscuss things of concerns to themand take into consideration seriouslytheir views is far more likely tosupport the development ofindependent, thoughtful and


page

305

responsible children than will feel a stake in the way services are delivered andtheir placement is going.

16. Regular and open forum should be provided to enable children to review theissues that matter to them not only with their carers and staff of the institutionbut with the managers of the parent organisation that runs the institution.

17. A responsible case manager should be identified for each child, taking responsibilityfor following the child’s progress, development not just when a ‘problem’ is deemedto occur but to assess the child’s well being, discuss regularly with issues andconcerns important to the child whether in the institution or outside and supportthe child in finding solutions to problems faced.

18. Food should be appropriate to children’s full development including in terms ofnutrition and quantity. Clear variety in terms of food provided should be requiredand should be monitored including the regular provision of fruits and food thatcaters to the particular needs of growing children.

19. Sleep and rest are also crucial to the physical and mental well being of growingchildren and children in the institutions are not getting enough of it. This is boundto affect their development as well as their capacity to concentrate and performat school. Children’s work, religious practices or other assigned tasks should notmean that children are regularly not getting enough sleep. Night sleep in thatregard is known to be particularly crucial to physical well being and napping isnot sufficient to replace lost sleep. Schedule should make enough sleep for childrena key consideration.

20. Recreation and playing is also known to have a crucial role in children’s developmentand to contribute not only to children’s social skills and learning but also toreducing stress and general well being. It should be build into the services providedby the institutions rather than seen as just a matter of providing a ball to play tofill free times between other activities. Going home for a decent period of timeand at regular times, exploring their environment and communities, encouraginglinks with children from their schools and neighbouring communities, all of thesewould ensure that children are able to develop new skills and relationships outsideof the institution as well as better links to their communities and the worldaround them.

21. Ensuring education should be about more than just paying fees. Supporting childrenin their home work, giving them the time, space, tools (tables, a conducive learningenvironment, books and material to study) as well as support teaching wheneverneeded. Providing appropriate transport to school, meals or money for mealsand snacks as well as required clothes including uniforms and shoes should alsobe provided in all cases.

22. Changing names, cutting relationships with families including not keeping adequaterecords of their whereabouts, the use of negative terms or language including‘neglected’, ‘poor’, ‘care children’, children to develop negative images of themselves


page

306

through degrading practices, discouraging the use of their local language or theirlocal customs, all of these practices are incompatible with the aim of providingappropriate care and protection for children and only serves to undermine thedevelopment of children’s own positive sense of themselves and who they are asindividuals rather than ‘what or where’ they come from. Institutions shouldencourage children’s developing sense of who they are and of their identity andsee this as a critical part of the care services they should provide to children.

23. Understanding the impact of ending care as not just finishing school but childrenhaving to leave behind what are often deep attachments with other children andin some cases the only emotional and social environment that they have knownfor major parts of their childhood is essential to ensuring a successful placement.Going home should be supported as an important step in the child’s developmentand children helped to see this as the ultimate goal. Strategies and plans shouldbe developed and reviewed throughout the placement including not only thetransition from school to higher education or work but also the transition to anew social life. The aim of a placement should be to support children to movetowards a better and more secure life within their communities and society andthis entails fundamentally moving towards a care situation as well as a socialsituation which is positive, supportive and empowering to them.


page

307

References

Baines, Steven (2005) Towards more Transparent Financial Management: Scholarshipand Grants Programmes in Indonesia, International Institute for EducationalPlanning, UNESCO

BPS (2003) Statistic of Education 2003: National Social-Economic Survey, Jakarta:BPS.

BPS (2003) Statistical Yearbook of Indonesia 2004, Jakarta: BPS.

BPS (2004) Data and Information on Poverty, Jakarta: BPS

BPS, Bappenas, UNDP (2004) National Human Development Report, Jakarta:BPS, Bappenas, UNDP

Cyrulnik, B (2002) Un merveilleux malheur, (Paris: Odile Jacob)

Depsos RI (2002) General Guidelines for the Operation of Childcare Institutions asPart of the Provision of Services to Neglected/Abandoned Children, Jakarta:Directorate General of Social and Rehabilitation Services, Directorate ofChildren’s Social Services Development.

Depsos RI (2003) General Guidelines for Social Organization/NGO, Jakarta:Directorate General of Social Empowerment.

Depsos RI (2004) General Guidelines for the Provision of Social Services to Childrenin Childcare Institutions, Jakarta: Directorate General of Social andRehabilitation Services, Directorate of Children’s Social ServicesDevelopment.

Depsos RI (2004) General Guidelines for the Provision of Social Services toNeglected Children outside of institutions, Jakarta: Directorate Generalof Social and Rehabilitation Services, Directorate of Children’s SocialServices Development.

Depsos RI (2004) Standardization for Social Care Institutions, Jakarta: Social WelfareEducation and Research Board, Depsos.

Depsos RI (2004) Guidelines on the Accreditation of the Social Care Institution(Panti Sosial) Keputusan Menteri Sosial Republik of Indonesia No: 50/HUK/2004, Jakarta: Depsos.

Depsos RI (2004) Data PMKS Tahun 2004, Jakarta: Depsos

Depsos RI (2005) Manual of Technical Guidelines for the delivery of the SubsidyProgram for Additional Food Costs for Social Care Institutions, Jakarta: Depsos.


page

308

Martin, Florence and Tata Sudrajat (2006) A Rapid Assessment of Children’s Homesin post-Tsunami Aceh, Jakarta: Save the Children and Depsos.

Minister of Social Affairs to the Republic of Indonesia (2005), Social MinisterRegulation of the Republic of Indonesia No: 82/HUK/2005 on Organizationand Working Mechanism Ministry of Social Affairs (2005)

Republic of Indonesia1945 Constitution.

Republic of Indonesia: Law Number 4 of 1979 Concerning Child Welfare (OfficialGazette of the Republic of Indonesia 1979 Number 32,

Republic of Indonesia: Law No 16 (2001) on Private Foundation (Official Gazetteof the Republic of Indonesia 2001 Number 112).

Republic of Indonesia: Law No 23 (2002) on Child Protection (Official Gazetteof the Republic of Indonesia 2002 Number 109).

Republic of Indonesia: Law No 32 (2004) on Local Governance (Official Gazetteof the Republic of Indonesia 2004 Number 125).

Republic of Indonesia: Government Regulation Number 2 of 1998 on GovernmentRegulation Number 2 of 1988 on improving the welfare of children withproblems;

Republic of Indonesia: Government Regulation Number 54 of 2007 on the Adoptionof Children.

Republic of Indonesia: Presidential Decree Number 101 of 2001 on the status,duties, functions, powers, organizational structure and working proceduresof state ministry

Republic of Indonesia: Presidential Decree Number 102 of 2001 on the status,duties, functions, powers, organizational structure and working proceduresof government departments

Republic Indonesia, ADB, British Council (2004) Social Safety Nets: Protectionthe Poor from Economic Crisis. Lessons Learnt from Indonesia 1998-2003

Save the Children (2003) A Last Resort: The growing concern about children inResidential care.

Save the Children UK (2005) Raising the Standards: Quality Childcare Provision inEast and Central Africa.

Save the Children and Aus-AID (2006) The Effects of Inter-communal Tension,Violence and Dislocation on Children’s Lives: A child facilitated Peer Consultation.

SMERU (2006) A Rapid Appraisal of the PKPS-BBM Education Sector: SchoolOperational Assistance (BOS) Programme 2005. The Smeru ResearchInstitute


page

309

Sukamdi, Setiadi and Sembiring (2002) Forced internal displacement: the Maduresein West Kalimantan, Indonesia: Ford Foundation

Swales, D (2006) Applying the Standards -improving quality child care provision inEast and Central Africa, Save the Children UK.

Sihbudi, Riza and Moch. Nurhasim (2001) Kerusuhan Sosial di Indonesia., Jakarta:Grasindo.

Tolfree, D (1995), Roofs and Roots: The care of separated children in the developingworld. Save the Children

UNCRC, CRC/C/3/Add.10 (14 January 1993)

UNCRC, CRC/C/15/Add.223 (26 February 2004)

UNCRC, CRC/C/65/Add.23

UNCRC, CRC/C/156

Internet

http://www.bps.go.id/sector/population/table1.shtml

www.dharmais.or.id

http://www.crin.org/docs/DRAFT_UN_Guidelines.pdf

www.bettercarenetwork.org


page

310

Attachment IThe Quality Care Research: Individual Research Reports (2007)

No. Childcare Institution Writers

I. Province of Aceh

1 Nirmala Hayuannisa Rimadhani and DwiYuliani

2 Muhammadiyah Meulaboh Diatyka Widya and Ellya Susilowati

3 Muhammadiyah Lhokseumawe Tuti Kartika and Andriani Johar

4 Al Ummah Dwi Yuliani and HayuannisaRimadhani

5 Suci Hati Ellya Susilowati and Diatyka Widya

6 Darul Ulum Al Munawarrah Andriani Johar and Tuti Kartika

II. Province of Central of Java

7 Woro Wiloso Alit Kurniasari, Ismet Firdaus, EndangSrihadi

8 Wahyu Yoga Dharma Ismet Firdaus, Endang Srihadi, AlitKurniasari

9 Darurrokhmah Endang Srihadi, Alit Kurniasari, IsmetFirdaus

10 Parmadi Utomo Dorang Luhpuri, Meiti Subardhini,Dwi Yuliani

11 Muhammadiyah Cilacap Meiti Subhardini, Dorang Luhpuri,Dwi Yuliani

12 SOS Desa Taruna Dwi Yuliani, Meiti Subardhini, DorangLuhpuri

III. Province of NTB

13 Patmos Ellya Susilowati and Yanuar FaridaWismayanti

14 Harapan Ellya Susilowati and Yanuar FaridaWismayanti

15 Dharma Laksana Tuti Kartika, Lisma Dyawati Fuaida,Untung Basuki

16 Darul Aitam Lisma Dyawati Fuaida, Tuti Kartika,Untung Basuki


page

311

17 Darul Hikmah Yanuar Farida Wismayanti and EllyaSusilowati

18 Al Ikhlas Lisma Dyawati Fuaida, Tuti Kartika,Untung Basuki

IV. Province of West Kalimantan

19 Al Amien Yanuar Farida Wismayanti

20 Ibnu Tamiyah Ellya Susilowati and Diatyka Widya

21 Eben Haezer Lisma Dyawati Fuaida and Tuti Kartika

22 UPRS Tuti Kartika and Lisma DyawatiFuaida

23 Nur Ilahi Diatyka Widya and Ellya Susilowati

24 Pepabri Andriani Johar and Yanuar FaridaWismayanti

V. Province of North Sulawesi

25 Sayap Kasih Alit Kurniasari, Endang Srihadi, DwiYuliani

26 Lohoraung Endang Srihadi, Dwi Yuliani, AlitKurniasari

27 Dr. J. Lukas Dwi Yuliani, Alit Kurniasari, EndangSrihadi

28 Prajapati Meiti Subhardini, Dorang Luhpuri,Ismet Firdaus

29 Dorkas Dorang Luhpuri, Meiti Subardhini,Ismet Firdaus

30 Al Muthadien Ismet Firdaus, Dorang Luhpuri, MeitiSubardhini

VI. Province of Maluku

31 Nurul Ikhlas Dwi Yuliani and Tuti Kartika

32 Al Hidayah Alit Kurniasari and HayuannisaRimadhani

33 Caleb House Diatyka Widya and Ellya Susilowati

34 Hidayatullah Tuti Kartika and Dwi Yuliani


page

312

35 Ina Theresia Hayuannisa Rimadhani and AlitKurniasari

36 Huke Ina Ellya Susilowati and Diatyka Widya

National

37 Tunas Bangsa Pati (Central of Java) Kanya Eka Santi, Tuti Kartika, DiatykaWidya

“Someone That Matters” that Matters.pdf“Someone That Matters” | The Quality of Care in Childcare Institutions in Indonesia page iv FOREWORD Director General for Social Services

Documents